Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species and Ecological Communities of and the Ranges, South

2009 - 2014

Department for Environment and Heritage

FIS 80034 www.environment.sa.gov.au

80034 Recovery cover FINAL.indd 1 7/7/09 11:22:19 AM               ,6%1  ‹'HSDUWPHQWIRU(QYLURQPHQW +HULWDJH*32%R[$GHODLGH  -XQH  &RYHUGHVLJQDQGSKRWRJUDSK\ &RYHUGHVLJQE\'(+&RUSRUDWH&RPPXQLFDWLRQV%UDQFK%HDXWLIXOILUHWDLO 6WDJRQRSOHXUDEHOOD SKRWR E\ 'DYLG3DWRQ 5HVWRUHG JUH\ ER[ (XFDO\SWXVPLFURFDUSD  JUDVV\ZRRGODQG SKRWR E\'DYLG 5REHUWVRQ IURP5HVWRUDWLRQRI*UDVV\:RRGODQG²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cknowledgements The preparation of the Recovery Plan would not have been possible without the input of many people. The authors are especially indebted to the following for their significant contribution:  Members of the Project’s Steering Committee: Adrian Stokes (DEH - Chair), Andrew Chalklen (AGDEWHA), David Turner (DEH), Dominic Nicholls (TSN), Hafiz Stewart (DEH), Jody Gates (DEH), Marcus Walters (LGA), Penny Paton (AMLR Board), Peter Copley (DEH), Vicki-Jo Russell (TSN) and Wendy Stubbs (DEH).  Other DEH staff who have provided valuable expertise and assistance: Alan Lambert, Amelia Hurren, Andrew Graham, Andrew West, Angela Duffy, Ann Prescott, Bill Barker, Chris Holden, Dan Duval, Dave Armstrong, David Thompson, Doug Bickerton, Helen Vonow, Maria Johns, Martin Oleary, Jason van Weenen, Jean Turner, Joe Quarmby, Kate Smith, Kirstin Long, Kirsty Bevan, Lisa Farroway, Mike Wouters, Peter Lang, Robyn Barker, Sandy Carruthers, Sandy Kinnear, Sonia Croft, Sue Graham and Tim Croft.  Others who have provided valuable expertise and information: Alys Stevens (SEWFPSRP), Bea Hurrell (DEH), Bob Bates (NOSSA), Caroline Dorr (AMLRNRMB), Cathy Houston (NOSSA), Ceridwen Synnot (DWLBC), David Paton (University of Adelaide), Denzel Murfet, Donna-Lee Edwards (DWLBC), Geoffrey Bradford (EPA), Graham Carpenter (DWLBC), Jason Downs (PIRSA), Jeremiah Smith, Jessica Mitchell (DWLBC), Kieran Brewer, Lynn Baker (NSW DECC), Marcus Pickett (SEWFPSRP), Mark Hutchinson (SAM), Michael Hammer, Robert Henzell (DWLBC), Ron Taylor (FNHCP), Rosemary Taplin and Tim Jury (TPAG).  Members of the AMLR NRM Four Nations Governance Group.  Members of the Commonwealth Threatened Species Scientific Committee.  Those who have provided photos for use in this document. The majority of funding support was provided by the Australian Government through the Natural Heritage Trust, administered by the AMLRNRMB. Additional funding and in-kind support was provided by DEH. The authors acknowledge the past and present Aboriginal custodians of the land within the AMLR and , valuing their knowledge and understanding of the region’s natural heritage.

i Executive Summary

Background to this plan Traditionally, recovery plans have been prepared for individual species or groups of species (multi- species plans). However, a more strategic and integrated approach to threatened species recovery and threat abatement is being explored through regional pilot projects such as this one. A detailed review of over 500 regionally threatened flora and vertebrate fauna species (excluding invertebrate fauna and marine species occurring approximately below the high water mark) resulted in the inclusion of 203 species and subspecies in this plan. Eighteen threatened terrestrial ecological communities occurring in the AMLR were also reviewed and prioritised, including three ecological communities listed under the EPBC Act. Marine species (occurring approximately below the high water mark) and invertebrate species have been excluded from this planning process. A key element of this recovery plan is to attempt increased integration of regional scale threat abatement activities for improved threatened species and ecological community recovery. Hence, unlike most traditional multi-species recovery plans, management actions have not been devised for individual species, but rather across species. Management actions have been derived from a series of species-based analyses (e.g. relating to threats, knowledge gaps and impediments to recovery). This plan has been prepared aiming to comply with the revised guidelines for preparing a recovery plan for adoption under the EPBC Act.19 This plan is aligned with relevant State and regional planning documents, including:  No Species Loss, A Nature Conservation Strategy for South Australia 2007-201710  Natural Resources Management Plan for the AMLR Region1  Draft Biodiversity Strategy for Adelaide and the Mount Lofty Ranges13, and  Other threatened species and ecological community recovery plans. This plan is divided into three parts:  The main body of the plan, which includes the background to the plan and the region, a summary of the planning methodology, summarised results of the prioritisation and threat analysis processes, proposed management objectives and actions.  The appendices to the plan (contained on the accompanying CD) are divided into two parts. Appendices Part A includes supplementary information, detailed analyses results and planning methodology. Appendices Part B includes profiles (with information, map and photo) for each of the 203 species in the plan for users requiring more specific information.

Background to the region The AMLR is a complex and biologically diverse region covering 780,626 hectares. The regional boundary adopted for this plan is based on biogeographical features, derived from the Draft Biodiversity Strategy for Adelaide and the .13 The region crosses NRM regional boundaries, incorporating the Adelaide and AMLRNRMB area and the western flank of the SA Murray Darling Basin NRM Board (SAMDBNRMB) region. The AMLR supports nine broad structural vegetation groups; Heathy Open Forest, Heathy Woodland, Grassy Woodland, Mallee, Grassland, Riparian, Wetland, Shrublands and Coastal. Over 450 native fauna species and 1500 native vascular species have been recorded in the region.13 The habitats of the AMLR, and the and animals that use them are isolated from similar higher- rainfall habitats in the south-east and south-west of the continent. The woodland and forest habitats of the AMLR are effectively an island surrounded by ocean to the south and west and the more arid woodland and mallee habitats to the north and east. As a result, the region supports a number of species and subspecies which are endemic or have the core of their State’s distribution within the region.

ii Plan methodology A custom planning model was devised for this plan incorporating a series of information reviews and analyses in relation to species inclusion, threat analysis, species prioritisation, ecological community prioritisation, knowledge gaps and impediments to recovery. There are several limitations acknowledged in the plan relating to the analyses.

The threatened species and ecological communities Many species have become extinct in the AMLR region, and a range of threatened species that may still be extant are considered ‘functionally extinct’. The species and subspecies included in this plan are considered threatened and are currently declining or have already declined to critical levels, where they are at risk of becoming either locally extinct or for endemics extinct across their whole range. Of the 130 flora species and 73 fauna species included in this plan, 18 are endemic to the AMLR (including subspecies). Thirty five of the species in this plan are listed as nationally threatened under the EPBC Act, and 149 species are listed as threatened under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (NPW Act)14. Fifty of the species are not listed as threatened under State or National legislation. Most of the species included in this plan have restricted and/or fragmented distributions within the AMLR. Some species have wider distributions within the AMLR, but their populations are considered to be declining. Many others have small population sizes and/or a limited number of sub-populations. Many species are considered disjunct from the remainder of their ranges, or are part of a limited distribution within the State. Not all threatened species which occur in AMLR that have a legislative conservation rating have been selected to be included in this plan. Due the regional focus of the plan, entire ranges for many included species are not covered in the analysis or proposed management. The plan incorporates a review and prioritisation of 18 recognised threatened ecological communities occurring within the AMLR, including three ecological communities listed as nationally threatened under the EPBC Act. The species and communities included in this plan are listed at the end of this executive summary.

Management priorities Regional threats The species and ecological communities included in this plan are subject to a wide range of threats, which are collectively contributing to decline. Species have initially become threatened because of historical actions, in particular the vast clearance of native vegetation. Species continue to suffer the prolonged stress of past threats, notably the fragmentation and isolation of populations and reduced population sizes. This makes them more vulnerable to threats currently operating in the region. The most significant direct threats to flora and fauna species include climate change, drought and severe weather, weed invasion, grazing and disturbance by stock, water management and use, residential and commercial development and inappropriate fire regimes. In addition, predation impacts on fauna species ranked relatively high in the threat analysis. Prioritisation All terrestrial species included in this plan have been prioritised for recovery action. Individual flora and fauna species have been separately prioritised into six ‘Vulnerability Groups’, and further spatially refined into ‘Sub-regional Landscape’ (SRL) priorities. The Fleurieu SRL is particularly rich in threatened flora species and includes a high proportion of endemic species (not occurring in any other SRL within the AMLR). The Southern Coastline and the Foothills/Hillsface SRLs, while relatively small SRLs, are also relatively rich in threatened flora and fauna species. A dominant proportion of AMLR threatened flora species included in this plan are associated with Wetland vegetation communities, followed by Heathy Woodland communities. For fauna species, the dominant associations are with Grassy Woodland and secondly Heathy Woodland communities.

iii Knowledge gaps Nearly half of all threatened species included in this plan have been identified as having a poor level of knowledge, particularly in terms of population status, distribution and level of decline. The level of knowledge is generally very poor for wetland threatened flora species and grassy woodland threatened fauna species. There is an urgent need to address knowledge gaps and clarify the conservation status of these species. Ecological communities Three threatened ecological communities listed on the EPBC Act are present within the AMLR - peppermint box grassy woodland of SA, iron-grass natural temperate grassland of SA and swamps of the . Other communities have also been identified as high priority for recovery, including a critical need to better determine their distribution and conservation status. These include Banksia marginata grassy low woodland, microcarpa grassy low woodland, Eucalyptus dalrympleana ssp. dalrympleana Open forest and Themeda triandra/Danthonia spp. Tussock grassland. Habitat re-establishment planning There is an urgent need for habitat re-establishment for threatened species and the priorities proposed in this plan can inform the planning of those actions. However, further strategic planning is required incorporating this plan’s species-based analyses with landscape-scale analyses using restoration planning principles. Impediments to recovery Significant organisational-related impediments to threatened species recovery have been identified. These issues involve recovery capacity and funding, knowledge-base management systems and community engagement. Recovery management must address these impediments concurrent with threat abatement actions and habitat re-establishment planning.

Recovery strategies The long-term aim of the plan is to reduce the probability of threatened species and ecological communities of the AMLR region becoming extinct in the wild, and to maximise species’ viability. Threatened species and ecological community recovery for the AMLR region requires urgent and sustained action under five broad strategic management themes: 1. Abatement of current direct threats 2. Habitat re-establishment 3. Impediments to recovery 4. Stakeholder engagement, and 5. Ex-situ conservation. The objectives and management actions proposed under the five strategic management themes attempt to set a realistic management framework over the next five years. This initial phase of regional recovery aims to:  Increase recovery resources, capacity and coordination  Improve planning strategies to reflect regional priorities and address information gaps  Increase the current level of priority threat abatement activities  Contribute to developing the information base and systems necessary to enhance recovery of threatened species and ecological communities  Continue developing and refining prioritisation systems, and  Complement and inform other relevant regional biodiversity planning processes. A recovery management framework has been devised which consists of 52 management actions developed to meet 14 recovery objectives. Forty-three performance criteria have been developed to assist in tasking and measuring the achievement of actions.

iv Costs and evaluation The total funding to implement this plan from the 2009-10 to 2014-15 financial year is estimated to be $10,164,680. However, it is likely that costs have been underestimated due to the difficulty in comprehensively costing all site-specific management requirements for the numerous species and communities included in this plan. Funds to implement this plan will be sought from State and Commonwealth governments and other sources. Progress towards achieving the recovery objectives in this plan will be reported against the performance criteria and as required by management and funding arrangements.

Threatened flora included in this plan

Scientific name Common name AUS SA AMLR* Life form Acacia gunnii Ploughshare Wattle R V Shrub Acacia menzelii Menzel's Wattle V V V Shrub Acacia pinguifolia Fat-leaf Wattle E E E Shrub Acacia rhetinocarpa Resin Wattle V V E Shrub Adiantum capillus-veneris Dainty Maiden-hair V V Fern Allocasuarina robusta Mount Compass Oak-bush E E E Shrub Amphibromus pithogastrus Plump Swamp Wallaby-grass T Grass Asterolasia muricata Rough Star-bush R V Shrub Austrostipa echinata Spiny Spear-grass R T Grass Austrostipa oligostachya Fine-head Spear-grass E E Grass Boronia parviflora Swamp Boronia R V Shrub Brachyscome diversifolia Tall Daisy E E Herb Caladenia argocalla White Beauty Spider-orchid E E E Orchid Caladenia behrii Pink-lip Spider-orchid E E E Orchid Caladenia bicalliata ssp. bicalliata Western Daddy-long-legs R E Orchid Caladenia colorata Coloured Spider-orchid E E E Orchid Caladenia gladiolata Bayonet Spider-orchid E E E Orchid Caladenia ovata Spider-orchid V E E Orchid Caladenia rigida Stiff White Spider-orchid E E E Orchid Caladenia valida Robust Spider-orchid E E Orchid Caladenia vulgaris Plain Caladenia R E Orchid Caleana major Large Duck-orchid V V Orchid Callistemon teretifolius Needle Bottlebrush V Shrub Calochilus campestris Plains Beard-orchid R E Orchid Calochilus cupreus Copper Beard-orchid E E Orchid Calochilus paludosus Red Beard-orchid V E Orchid Centrolepis glabra Smooth Centrolepis R T Herb Correa calycina var. calycina Hindmarsh Correa V V V Shrub Correa eburnea Deep Creek Correa V V Shrub Corybas dentatus Finniss Helmet-orchid V E E Orchid Corybas expansus Dune Helmet-orchid V E Orchid Corybas unguiculatus Small Helmet-orchid R E Orchid Crassula sieberiana Sieber's Crassula E E Herb Cryptostylis subulata Moose Orchid V E Orchid Cullen parvum Small Scurf-pea V E Herb Dampiera lanceolata var. intermedia Aldinga Dampiera E E Shrub Daviesia pectinata Zig-zag Bitter-pea R E Shrub Dianella longifolia var. grandis Pale Flax-lily R V Lily pardalinum Hyacinth-orchid V V Orchid Diuris behrii Behr's Cowslip Orchid V V Orchid Diuris brevifolia Short-leaf Donkey-orchid E E Orchid Eleocharis atricha Tuber Spike-rush V E Rush Eremophila gibbifolia Coccid Emubush R V Shrub Eucalyptus cneorifolia Kangaroo Island Narrow-leaf Mallee V Mallee Eucalyptus paludicola Mount Compass Swamp Gum E E E Mallee Eucalyptus phenax ssp. compressa Kangaroo Island Mallee R V Mallee Euphrasia collina ssp. osbornii Osborn's Eyebright E E V Herb Gahnia radula Thatch Saw-sedge R E Sedge Gastrodia sesamoides Potato Orchid R E Orchid Glycine latrobeana Clover Glycine V V V Herb Glycine tabacina Variable Glycine V E Herb Gratiola pumilo Dwarf Brooklime R E Herb Haloragis brownii Swamp Raspwort R T Herb Haloragis myriocarpa R E Herb Helichrysum rutidolepis Pale Everlasting E E Herb

v Scientific name Common name AUS SA AMLR* Life form Hibbertia tenuis E E Shrub Hydrocotyle crassiuscula Spreading Pennywort R V Herb Juncus amabilis V V Rush Juncus prismatocarpus Branching Rush E E Rush Juncus radula Hoary Rush V T Rush Lagenophora gracilis Slender Bottle-daisy V V Herb Leionema hillebrandii Mount Lofty Phebalium R V Shrub Logania minor Spoon-leaf Logania T Shrub Luzula flaccida Pale Wood-rush V T Rush Lycopodiella lateralis Slender Clubmoss R T Clubmoss Lycopodiella serpentina Bog Clubmoss E E Clubmoss Lycopodium deuterodensum Bushy Clubmoss E E Clubmoss Maireana decalvans Black Cotton-bush E E Shrub Mazus pumilio Swamp Mazus V E Herb Melaleuca squamea Swamp Honey-myrtle R V Shrub Microtis atrata Yellow Onion-orchid R E Orchid Microtis rara Sweet Onion-orchid R E Orchid Montia fontana ssp. chondrosperma Waterblinks V V Herb Neopaxia australasica White Purslane R V Herb Olearia glandulosa Swamp Daisy-bush V E Shrub Olearia pannosa ssp. pannosa Silver Daisy-bush V V V Shrub Oreomyrrhis eriopoda Australian Carraway E V Herb Orobanche cernua var. australiana Australian Broomrape R E Herb Paracaleana disjuncta Black-beak Duck-orchid E E Orchid Paracaleana minor Small Duck-orchid V E Orchid Phyllanthus striaticaulis Southern Spurge V Herb Podolepis muelleri Button Podolepis V E Herb Potamogeton ochreatus Blunt Pondweed R T Herb Prasophyllum australe Austral Leek-orchid R V Orchid Prasophyllum fecundum Self-pollinating Leek-orchid R E Orchid Prasophyllum fitzgeraldii Fitzgerald's Leek-orchid E Orchid Prasophyllum murfetii CE E E Orchid Prasophyllum occultans Hidden Leek-orchid R E Orchid Prasophyllum pallidum Pale Leek-orchid V R V Orchid Prasophyllum pruinosum Plum Leek-orchid V E Orchid Pratia puberula White-flower Matted Pratia V E Herb Prostanthera chlorantha Green Mintbush R T Shrub Prostanthera eurybioides Monarto Mintbush E E E Shrub Psilotum nudum Skeleton Fork-fern E E Fern Pteris tremula Tender Brake R V Fern arenicola Sandhill Greenhood V V E Orchid Pterostylis bryophila Hindmarsh Greenhood CE E E Orchid Pterostylis cucullata ssp. sylvicola Leafy Greenhood V E E Orchid Pterostylis curta Blunt Greenhood R V Orchid Pterostylis falcata E E Orchid Pterostylis sp. Hale (R.Bates 21725) Hale Greenhood E E Orchid Pterostylis uliginosa E E Orchid Pultenaea dentata Clustered Bush-pea R V Shrub Pultenaea viscidula Dark Bush-pea V Shrub Ranunculus inundatus River Buttercup R T Herb Ranunculus papulentus Large River Buttercup V E Herb Schizaea bifida Forked Comb-fern V E Fern Schizaea fistulosa Narrow Comb-fern V E Fern Schoenus discifer Tiny Bog-rush R E Rush Schoenus latelaminatus Medusa Bog-rush V T Rush Senecio megaglossus Large-flower Groundsel V E E Shrub Spiranthes australis Austral Lady's Tresses R E Orchid Spyridium coactilifolium Butterfly Spyridium V V V Shrub Tecticornia flabelliformis Bead Samphire V V V Shrub circumsepta Naked Sun-orchid E E Orchid Thelymitra cyanapicata Blue Top Sun-orchid CE E E Orchid Thelymitra cyanea Veined Sun-orchid E E Orchid Thelymitra holmesii Blue Star Sun-orchid V V Orchid Thelymitra inflata Plum Sun-orchid V V Orchid Thelymitra mucida R E Orchid Thelymitra peniculata Peniculate Sun-orchid V V Orchid Todea barbara King Fern E E Fern Tricostularia pauciflora Needle Bog-rush E E Rush

vi Scientific name Common name AUS SA AMLR* Life form Trymalium wayi Grey Trymalium V Shrub Utricularia lateriflora Small Bladderwort V E Herb Veronica derwentiana ssp. anisodonta Kangaroo Island Speedwell R E Shrub Veronica derwentiana ssp. homalodonta Mt Lofty Speedwell E E Shrub Viola betonicifolia ssp. betonicifolia Showy Violet E E Herb Wurmbea uniflora One-flower Nancy E E Lily Xyris operculata Tall Yellow-eye R T Herb * Unofficial regional conservation rating derived for the purposes of this plan only. CE = Critically Endangered (AUS EPBC Act only); E = Endangered, T = Threatened, V = Vulnerable, R = Rare (in respective order of threat status). Note: ‘Threatened’ used only for regional threat rating.

Threatened fauna included in this plan

Common name Scientific name AUS SA AMLR* Class Brown Toadlet Pseudophryne bibronii R V Amphibian Australasian Bittern Botaurus poiciloptilus V V Bird Baillon’s Crake Porzana pusilla R Bird Bassian Thrush Zoothera lunulata halmaturina R V Bird Beautiful Firetail Stagonopleura bella R E Bird Black-chinned Honeyeater Melithreptus gularis gularis V E Bird Brown Quail Coturnix ypsilophora V V Bird Brown Treecreeper Climacteris picumnus picumnus V Bird Brown-headed Honeyeater Melithreptus brevirostris pallidiceps U Bird Brush Bronzewing Phaps elegans U Bird Buff-banded Rail Gallirallus philippensis mellori V Bird Chestnut-rumped Heathwren * Hylacola pyrrhopygia parkeri E E V Bird Chestnut-rumped Thornbill Acanthiza uropygialis V Bird Crested Shrike-tit Falcunculus frontatus frontatus R V Bird Diamond Firetail Stagonopleura guttata V V Bird Fairy Martin Petrochelidon ariel U Bird Fan-tailed Cuckoo Cacomantis flabelliformis V Bird Hooded Robin Melanodryas cucullata cucullata R E Bird Horsfield’s Bronze-cuckoo Chalcites basalis V Bird Jacky Winter Microeca fascinans fascinans R V Bird Lewin`s Rail Lewinia pectoralis pectoralis V V Bird Little Wattlebird Anthochaera chrysoptera U Bird Orange-bellied Parrot Neophema chrysogaster CE E E Bird Painted Button-quail Turnix varius R V Bird Pallid Cuckoo Cacomantis pallidus V Bird Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus R R Bird Red-capped Robin Petroica goodenovii V Bird Red-rumped Parrot Psephotus haematonotus U Bird Restless Flycatcher Myiagra inquieta R E Bird Rufous Whistler Pachycephala rufiventris rufiventris U Bird Sacred Kingfisher Todiramphus sanctus sanctus U Bird Scarlet Robin Petroica boodang boodang R V Bird Shining Bronze-Cuckoo Chalcites lucidus R Bird Slender-billed Thornbill # Acanthiza iredalei rosinae V V Bird Southern Emu-wren ^ Stipiturus malachurus intermedius E E E Bird Southern Whiteface Aphelocephala leucopsis V Bird Spotless Crake Porzana tabuensis R U Bird Spotted Quail-thrush Cinclosoma punctatum anachoreta CE E E Bird Tawny Frogmouth Podargus strigoides U Bird Tawny-crowned Honeyeater Glyciphila melanops U Bird Tree Martin Petrochelidon nigricans U Bird Varied Sittella Daphoenositta chrysoptera chrysoptera U Bird Whistling Kite Haliastur sphenurus U Bird White-browed Babbler Pomatostomus superciliosus gilgandra U Bird White-fronted Chat Epthianura albifrons U Bird White-naped Honeyeater Melithreptus lunatus U Bird White-winged Chough Corcorax melanorhamphos R V Bird Yellow Thornbill Acanthiza nana U Bird Yellow-rumped Thornbill Acanthiza chrysorrhoa U Bird Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus funereus V V Bird Zebra Finch Taeniopygia guttata U Bird Climbing galaxias Galaxias brevipinnis V Fish Congolli Pseudaphritis urvillii V Fish Mountain galaxias Galaxias olidus V Fish

vii Common name Scientific name AUS SA AMLR* Class Murray hardyhead Craterocephalus fluviatilis V E Fish Pouched lamprey Geotria australis V Fish River blackfish Gadopsis marmoratus E Fish Short-headed lamprey Mordacia mordax V Fish Southern pygmy perch Nannoperca australis E Fish Yarra pygmy perch Nannoperca obscura V E Fish Isoodon obesulus obesulus E V V Mammal Western Pygmy-possum Cercartetus concinnus V Mammal Carpet Python Morelia spilota R E Reptile Cunningham`s Skink Egernia cunninghami E V Reptile Eastern Water Skink Eulamprus quoyii V Reptile Five-lined Earless Dragon Tympanocryptis lineata lineata E Reptile Worm-lizard Aprasia pseudopulchella V U Reptile Heath Goanna Varanus rosenbergi V E Reptile Olive Snake-lizard Delma inornata V Reptile Pygmy Copperhead Austrelaps labialis V Reptile Southern Grass Skink Pseudemoia entrecasteauxii V Reptile Tiger Snake Notechis scutatus V Reptile Yellow-bellied Water Skink Eulamprus heatwolei V V Reptile * Unofficial regional conservation rating derived for the purposes of this plan only. CE = Critically Endangered (AUS EPBC Act only); E = Endangered, V = Vulnerable, R = Rare, U = Uncommon (in respective order of threat status). Note: ‘Uncommon’ used only for regional threat rating. ^ = MLR subspecies; # = St Vincent Gulf subspecies

EPBC listed threatened ecological communities included in this plan

Ecological Community AUS Iron Grass (Lomandra effusa – L. multiflora ssp. dura) Natural Temperate Grassland of SA CE Peppermint Box (Eucalyptus odorata) Grassy Woodland of SA CE Swamps of Fleurieu Peninsula CE CE = Critically Endangered (EPBC Act only)

Other threatened ecological communities included in this plan

Ecological Community* SA* Banksia marginata Grassy Low Woodland E Eucalyptus dalrympleana ssp. dalrympleana Open Forest E Eucalyptus microcarpa Grassy Low Woodland E Eucalyptus odorata +/- E. leucoxylon Grassy Low Woodland E Freshwater wetlands e.g. Triglochin procerum Herbland E Leptospermum lanigerum Closed Shrubland E Lomandra effusa Tussock Grassland E Melaleuca squamea +/- Leptospermum continentale Closed Scrubland V Themeda triandra +/- Danthonia spp. Tussock Grassland E Callitris preissii +/- E. leucoxylon Grassy Low Woodland V Eucalyptus fasciculosa +/- E. leucoxylon Heathy Woodland V Eucalyptus ovata +/- E. viminalis ssp. cygnetensis +/- E. camaldulensis Low Woodland V Gahnia filum Sedgeland V Eucalyptus viminalis ssp. cygnetensis and/or E. viminalis ssp. viminalis Woodland V Allocasuarina verticillata Grassy Low Woodland V Eucalyptus leucoxylon ssp. pruinosa +/- E. odorata Grassy Low Woodland V Eucalyptus porosa Woodland # Melaleuca halmaturorum Shrubland/ Low Open Forest # *Source: Provisional List of Threatened Ecosystems of South Australia (DEH 2005).8 Note: some community classifications overlap with EPBC-listed communities in above table. E = Endangered; V = Vulnerable; # Conservation concern but more detailed assessment required.

viii Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...... i Executive Summary ...... ii 1. Introduction...... 1 1.1 Background...... 1 1.2 Scope of this Plan ...... 1 1.3 Limits to the Use of this Plan...... 3 1.4 Regional Planning & Management Overview...... 4 2. Legislative Context...... 5 2.1 State and National Legislation ...... 5 2.2 International Obligations...... 6 3. Planning Area Description ...... 6 3.1 Overview of the AMLR Region...... 6 3.2 Biodiversity Overview ...... 8 3.3 Threats Overview ...... 10 3.4 Ecological Stresses Overview...... 20 4. Planning Approaches and Methods...... 21 4.1 Data Management & Species Inclusion Processes...... 21 4.2 Species & Sub-regional Prioritisation...... 21 4.3 Ecological Communities...... 24 4.4 Threat Analysis...... 26 4.5 Community Engagement ...... 27 4.6 Benefits to Other Species/Ecological Communities...... 27 5. Summary of Analyses...... 28 5.1 Threatened Species ...... 28 5.2 Ecological Communities...... 29 5.3 Current Direct Threats ...... 32 5.4 Species Knowledge Level Assessment ...... 41 5.5 Habitat Re-establishment Planning Linkages & Analyses Summaries...... 45 6. Impediments to Recovery ...... 50 6.1 Capacity and Management...... 50 6.2 Knowledge Gaps...... 51 7. Recovery Management Framework...... 52 7.1 Objectives...... 53 7.2 Actions ...... 55 7.3 Performance Criteria ...... 61 7.4 Management Practices ...... 63 8. Plan Administration ...... 64 8.1 Timelines and Costs ...... 64 8.2 Plan Review and Evaluation ...... 69 9. Social and Economic Consequences ...... 69

ix 9.1 Responsibilities and Affected Interests...... 69 Abbreviations...... 70 References ...... 72

APPENDICES (CD) PART A 1. Consultation and Stakeholders 2. Chronological Snapshot of the AMLR Region 3. Legislation and Planning 4. Project Planning and Methodology 5. Excluded Flora Species 6. Excluded Fauna Species 7. Summary of Vulnerability, Level of Knowledge, Broad Vegetation Groups and Habitat Specialisation (Flora) 8. Summary of Vulnerability, Level of Knowledge, Broad Vegetation Groups and Habitat Specialisation (Fauna) 9. Recovery Management & Research 10. Broad Vegetation Groups 11. Threat Analysis 12. Threatening Weeds (by Broad Vegetation Group) References

PART B Regional Species Profiles

x List of Tables Table 1. Summary of fauna classes included in this plan...... 2 Table 2. Summary of flora life forms included in this plan ...... 2 Table 3. Summary of legislative status for species covered by this plan ...... 2 Table 4. Conservation/distribution significance of the threatened species included in the plan ...... 3 Table 5. Number and status of existing recovery plans, action plans and conservation advices for species and ecological communities included in this plan...... 4 Table 6. Look-up matrix to determine Sub-regional Landscape species priority ...... 22 Table 7. Summary of sub-regional landscapes of the AMLR...... 24 Table 8. Descriptions of Broad Vegetation Groups ...... 25 Table 9. Flora species Sub-regional Landscape presence...... 28 Table 10. Fauna species Sub-regional Landscape presence (excluding fish) ...... 29 Table 11. Summary of flora species Vulnerability Group and preferred Broad Vegetation Group ...... 29 Table 12. Summary of fauna species Vulnerability Group and preferred Broad Vegetation Group ...... 30 Table 13. Threat assessment of Broad Vegetation Groups with associated threatened ecological communities...... 31 Table 14. Species-based threat analysis summary & management links...... 33 Table 15. Threatened flora species analysis summary (pages 35-38) ...... 34 Table 16. Threatened fauna species analysis summary (pages 39-40) ...... 38 Table 17. Threatened freshwater fish analysis summary ...... 40 Table 18. Fauna species summary management & knowledge level & BVG ...... 42 Table 19. Flora species summary management & knowledge level & BVG ...... 43

List of Figures Figure 1. The Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges planning region...... 7 Figure 2. Sub-regional Landscapes of the AMLR...... 23

xi

Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

1. Introduction

1.1 Background Recovery plans are important management documents that enable recovery activities related to threatened species and ecological communities to be approached within a planned and logical framework. Three types of recovery plans are recognised:  Single entity recovery plans for a relatively small number of high priority or unique species or communities  Group plans for multiple species and/or communities often with a common link, such as common threats or habitat needs, and  Regional recovery plans that incorporate recovery and threat abatement priorities for threatened species and communities within a region. This represents a new style of recovery planning. Whilst the traditional approach to recovery planning for single species has seen many successful programs implemented for threatened species, it has long been recognised that there are a number of limitations to this approach. Single species recovery plans can fail to integrate broader natural resource management issues (particularly at the regional scale), and account for ecological interactions occurring between species within a system. Single species recovery plans also fail to identify likely benefits or negative impacts to other threatened species associated with the proposed recovery actions. The time and resources required to develop individual plans, collate the necessary information and undertake stakeholder consultations can be significant. There has been a recent shift to develop regional multi-species plans, particularly for plants. South Australian examples include: the Recovery Plan for 15 Nationally Threatened Plant Species on Kangaroo Island, SA34; Recovery Plan for Twelve Threatened Orchids in the Lofty Block Region of SA 2007-201231; SA Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan28 and Draft Recovery Plan for Twenty-three Threatened Flora Taxa on , SA 2007-201230. Such plans focus on a selected subset of species that do not necessarily overlap in range or requirements, but which are considered as warranting priority attention within a region. For most regional multi-species plans, the process adopted to select target species primarily uses legislative conservation ratings. Because these ratings are set at a much broader geographical level, these plans may neglect the needs of other important species which may be regionally more significant in terms of conservation status, threats and distribution. This plan is the result of an Australian Government funded pilot project to test the feasibility (from an ecological and legislative perspective) of an integrated regional recovery and threat abatement plan approach. Other similar projects have progressed elsewhere in Australia, primarily in the Border Ranges region of northern NSW/southern QLD and at Lord Howe Island, NSW.14,15 This plan represents the first attempt in SA to assess and prioritise threatened species across multiple taxa within a region, and provide a framework for their recovery planning and management. The plan also incorporates the region’s threatened ecological communities. It is hoped that this approach will foster a more holistic understanding of the species and ecological communities at risk within the region, and provide more effective and efficient means to promote their recovery. This five year plan represents an initial stage of regional recovery only. The plan is divided into three parts:  The main body of the plan, and  The appendices to the plan (contained on the accompanying CD) which are divided into two parts. Appendices Part A includes supplementary information, detailed analyses results and planning methodology. Appendices Part B includes profiles for each of the 203 species in the plan for users requiring more specific information.

1.2 Scope of this Plan This recovery plan specifically addresses 203 threatened species and 18 threatened ecological communities in the AMLR region of SA. The region in the context of this plan crosses NRM boundaries and matches that of the draft Biodiversity Strategy for Adelaide and the Mount Lofty Ranges13 (see Section 3.1).

1 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

The 203 threatened species consist of 130 flora species and 73 vertebrate fauna species. A summary of the taxa groups included in this plan is shown in Table 1 and Table 2. Marine species (occurring approximately below the high water mark) and invertebrate species have been excluded from this planning process. It is important to note that not all threatened species which occur in AMLR, that have a legislative conservation rating, have been selected to be included in this plan. The selection of species for inclusion in the plan was based on a review of all flora and vertebrate fauna species considered at priority risk in the AMLR region (see Section 4.1). A list of the species that were reviewed for inclusion but excluded from the plan is provided in Appendices Part A. The inclusion process should be subject to ongoing review upon implementation of this plan. The 35 species listed as nationally threatened under the Commonwealth’s EPBC Act are included in the plan (refer to Table 3). However, an additional 11 EPBC listed species that are recorded as present in the region were excluded from the plan because the records are erroneous, they are considered extinct or functionally extinct (occurs very infrequently or exists in extremely low numbers but is not considered to form a viable, breeding population) or their distribution is very peripheral to the region. Thirty of the included EPBC listed species also have a rating in SA under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (NPW Act). The plan includes a further 149 NPW Act listed species, and 50 species without a Commonwealth or State rating.

Table 1. Summary of fauna classes included in this plan Amphibian Bird Freshwater Fish Mammal Reptile # species 1 50 9 2 11

Table 2. Summary of flora life forms included in this plan Club Fern Grass Herb Lily Mallee Orchid Rush/ Shrub moss Sedge # species 3 6 3 27 2 3 47 9 30

Table 3. Summary of legislative status for species covered by this plan National (EPBC Act) State (NPW Act) CE E V Total E V R Total Fauna 2 3 3 8 5 (4) 10 (9) 13 (13) 28 (26) Flora 3 11 13 27 42 (26) 38 (30) 41 (40) 121 (96) Total 4 14 16 35* 47 (30) 48 (39) 54 (53) 149 (122)

CE = Critically Endangered (EPBC Act only), E = Endangered, V = Vulnerable, R = Rare (NPW Act only) Note: The numbers in brackets represent the number of species with a State rating that do not have a National rating. A further 53 species (45 fauna, 8 flora) have neither a National or State rating. This table does not include the SA Fisheries Management Act 2007 which lists 3 freshwater fish species included in this plan as ‘Protected’.

Eighteen of the species or subspecies in the plan are endemic to the AMLR region. The distributions of the remaining species extend into other regions of SA and/or interstate. This plan only deals with species’ populations within the AMLR region. The species included in this plan were categorised according to the AMLR distribution relative to their broader distribution (Table 4). The following additional EPBC Act listed species that were known or presumed to historically reside or visit the AMLR region are recognised: glossy black-cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami (Kangaroo Island, possible visitor to Fleurieu Peninsula); pygmy blue-tongue lizard Tiliqua adelaidensis (once occurred on the ); swift parrot Lathamus discolor (irregular visitor or now vagrant, breeds only in ); the SA mainland subspecies of Macropus eugenii eugenii (once occurred on Fleurieu Peninsula). Whilst these species have not been incorporated into this planning process, the recommended actions in this plan should benefit them, should there be opportunity for their return to the region in the future. The plan considers 18 threatened ecological communities that occur within the AMLR, including the ecological communities listed or nominated as nationally threatened under the EPBC Act.

2 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

Table 4. Conservation/distribution significance of the threatened species included in the plan State Definition Flora* Fauna* significance AMLR A species that occurs only in AMLR and not found elsewhere 15 3 endemic in the State or interstate. May include targets that previously had a wider distribution prior to decline. State Disjunct 95 (15) 15 (1) endemics & A species that occurs as a distinct population or occurrence non-endemics of a community in the region isolated from other populations or occurrences in other regions (at least approximately 150km apart, and including Kangaroo Island). Limited 17 (14) 23 (1) A species whose AMLR distribution is more or less contiguous across one to three adjacent regions. Peripheral 3 (3) 3 (1) A species that has a small proportion of its distribution in the region, with the majority of the distribution occurring in adjacent region or regions. Widespread 0 29 A species that occurs across many (more than four) regions. * Includes subspecies. The numbers in brackets represent State endemics, i.e. species ranging outside of the AMLR region but occurring only within SA. Note: distribution categories adapted from Groves (2003)24, based on database records post 1983).12

This plan was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the EPBC Act and is required to be reviewed after a period of five years following adoption. However, specific management actions are proposed relating to the need for ongoing updating and reviewing of the species inclusion and prioritisation processes developed in this plan, as further information and improved databases becomes available. It is recognised that this planning approach will not meet the specific requirements of all threatened species or communities and there will continue to be a need for both sub-regional scale planning and single or multi-species recovery plans, in many cases.

1.3 Limits to the Use of this Plan It is recognised that there will be a variety of potential users of this plan with specific information requirements. A range of analyses are presented in this plan that could potentially be presented in a number of different combinations, not all of which could be included in the plan. Consequently with implementation adjunct products will be developed to present a greater range of plan outputs. Users of the information presented in this plan and associated products need to carefully consider the caveats provided, particularly concerning the threat analysis and species prioritisation. In addition, the prioritisation of threatened ecological communities was limited by the lack of knowledge concerning community classification, distribution and status, which also prevented more detailed analyses. Related to this is the use of “Broad Vegetation Groups” as generalised habitat descriptors. It is envisaged that this classification process can be refined as new knowledge is gained through implementing several management actions proposed in this plan. This plan has been developed to directly integrate with the Draft AMLR Biodiversity Conservation Strategy. While this plan may be partially used as a stand-alone document to inform strategies for landscape restoration priorities, it is the future integration of planning processes that will better contribute to informing landscape restoration. Full implementation of this plan will involve development of more sophisticated tools which will also assist in achieving some of the community engagement and knowledge-base related actions. Importantly, such tools will be able to present updated analysis results, as knowledge of species and threats is improved and conservation ratings are revised. As discussed above, this plan does not include all legislatively ‘listed’ threatened species occurring in the AMLR. Other constraints to the use of this plan are mostly related to challenges in devising comprehensive and measurable management objectives and actions, outlined in Section 7.

3 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

1.4 Regional Planning & Management Overview This recovery plan contributes to the objectives of the following strategies and plans:  National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity3,16  State Natural Resources Management Plan 200617  No Species Loss: A Nature Conservation Strategy for South Australia 2007-201710  A Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for Adelaide and the Mount Lofty Ranges (Draft)13, and  Creating a Sustainable Future: A Natural Resources Management Plan for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region1. A diagrammatic representation showing the relationship of this plan with other State and regional planning documents is presented in Appendices Part A. Key planning documents relevant to the implementation of this plan are further described in Appendices Part A. Development of this plan coincided with the development of the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for Adelaide and the Mount Lofty Ranges by SA DEH, and the Natural Resources Management Plan for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges by the AMLR NRM Board. This provided the opportunity for integration between the three planning processes. In particular, the planning area, sub-regional stratification and broad vegetation groups adopted for this plan are consistent with those in the Draft Biodiversity Conservation Strategy. The strategy includes fundamental vegetation analysis and proposes regional restoration strategies and priorities. Importantly, this plan presumes that implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy will drive landscape restoration planning and management within the AMLR. This plan is intended to complement and not duplicate the regional NRM and Biodiversity Strategy planning processes, by enabling more comprehensive planning to be undertaken for threatened species at a level of detail which is not practicable in these plans. Additional implementation planning will be required in the future to incorporate the ‘coarse filter’ elements of landscape restoration plans and ‘fine filter’ elements of threatened species plans, such as this one (see Section 5.5).

Information contained within this plan has been sourced from existing recovery plans, action plans, threat abatement plans, other relevant publications, unpublished literature, electronic sources and personal communication with regional experts. National, State and regional species-specific recovery plans and action statements (and various other documents with management recommendations) exist for a number of the threatened species included in this plan. A summary of the existing recovery and action plan documents for species included in this plan is shown in Table 5 below, with further details (by species) provided in Appendices Part A.

Table 5. Number and status of existing recovery plans, action plans and conservation advices for species and ecological communities included in this plan Regional EPBC Interstate/ Regional (non- Sprat/Con Action National State NZ (AMLR) AMLR) Advice Plan Current 1 (1) 1 (1) 7 (4) 6 (1) 6 (1) 33 (33) 25 (4) In prep 2 (2) Draft 6 (6) 1 (1) 2 (1) Not current 1 (1) 3 (3) 4 (3) 3 (1) Total 10 (10) 5 (5) 11 (7) 6 (1) 11 (3) 33 (33) 25 (4)

Notes:  Numbers outside of brackets represent the number of threatened species/ecological communities covered by existing plans. The numbers in brackets represent the number of individual plans (i.e. some plans cover multiple species).  Within a recovery plan category (National, State, Interstate, Regional), only the most current version of a recovery plan has been included in the count (i.e. a plan is only counted in the ‘Not current’, ‘Draft’ or ‘In prep’ categories if it has not been replaced by a more recent version). Plans have been classed as ‘Not Current’ if they expire by July 2008.  Some species have plans in more than one category (i.e. a species with a regional plan, may also have a National, State, Interstate, and/or other regional plan).  The ‘EPBC Sprat/Con Advice’ category refers to the AGDEWHA Species Profile and Threats Database, and conservation and listing advices. The count for this category includes the three nationally listed ecological communities.  The ‘Action Plan’ category refers to taxon outlines, summaries and action statements, from national and South Australian Action Plans (it does not include action statements from interstate). The Native Fish Strategy for the Murray Darling Basin 2003-2013 includes recovery actions for a number of the freshwater fish included in this plan, but has not been included in this assessment.

4 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

As stated above, this plan is not intended to replace any current single-species recovery plans but rather provide an integrated context in which recovery of those taxa will occur in the AMLR. The current single-species recovery plans should be referred to for more detailed specific information and recovery actions. Several formal threatened species and ecological community recovery programs are in existence within the AMLR. The majority of these programs are funded through the AMLRNRMB, and secondly the SAMDBNRMB. Relevant programs include:  Mount Lofty Ranges Southern Emu-Wren & Fleurieu Peninsula Swamps Recovery Program  Southern Brown Bandicoot Recovery Program  Lofty Block Threatened Orchid Recovery Program  Threatened Plant Action Group  Urban Forest Biodiversity Program  Hindmarsh Tiers Biodiversity Project  Peppermint Box Grassy Woodlands and Iron-grass Grasslands Recovery Program (commenced in 2008, funded by AGDEWHA and DEH), and  South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Program. These programs are delivered by a range of government agencies, NGOs and community groups. A detailed list of projects and stakeholders is provided in Appendices Part A. As previously mentioned, this plan does not cover the marine environment and does not include invertebrates or coastal species or habitats below the high water mark. SA's coastal, estuarine and marine programs are shaped by a number of other State and national strategies and policies.

2. Legislative Context

2.1 State and National Legislation There are various Acts of Parliament relevant to this plan that either protect native animals and plants directly, protect the habitats and areas that support them, or integrate conservation objectives with other land management uses. The principal Acts are described below. Other relevant legislation is described in Appendices Part A.

2.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 The Commonwealth EPBC Act regulates actions that may result in a significant impact on nationally listed threatened species and ecological communities. An action that is likely to have a significant impact on any of the nationally listed species or ecological communities in this plan must be referred to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts for assessment. All species listed under the Act are recognised as Matters of National Environmental Significance. The Minister may require recovery plans to be prepared for any threatened species and ecological communities listed under the EPBC Act. It is also possible for the Minister to adopt plans prepared by State and territory government agencies, provided that they meet the requirements for adoption under the EPBC Act. Further details on EPBC recovery plan requirements are described in Appendices Part A. This includes details on how this plan addresses some important requirements, such as identifying habitat critical to survival of species and community consultation. 2.1.2 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 The State’s National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (NPW Act) provides for: the protection of habitat and wildlife through the establishment of parks and reserves (both on land and in State waters), the development of park management plans, the protection of all native plants and animals and the eggs of protected animals (unless listed in Schedule 10 or declared by regulation to be unprotected), the listing of threatened species (schedules 7, 8, 9) and regulation of the use of approved wildlife through a permit system. The threatened species schedules are regularly reviewed. The most recent revision of the schedules was gazetted in February 2008. The schedules do not currently include freshwater fish or ecological communities.

5 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

2.1.3 Native Vegetation Act 1991 The State’s Native Vegetation Act 1991 (NV Act) regulates the clearance of native vegetation in SA. Generally it prohibits broad-scale clearance of native vegetation and imposes strict penalties for illegal clearance. Native vegetation can only be cleared legally where the NV Act permits such clearance, either under the exemptions in the regulations of the NV Act or through seeking the approval of the Native Vegetation Council (by submitting a clearance application). The exemptions are designed to permit certain clearance for safety, land use or management reasons (e.g. the establishment of firebreaks, tracks and fence lines). In most situations, clearance of native vegetation requires approval from the Native Vegetation Council (NVC), including clearance under many of the exemptions. The NV Act is also the legislative basis for the Heritage Agreement Scheme. Private Land and some types of public land can be formally protected for conservation purposes under Heritage Agreements. A Heritage Agreement is an agreement between a landholder and the State Government for the protection in perpetuity of a particular area of native vegetation. In signing the agreement the landowner becomes eligible to receive financial assistance for the management of the land, a rate rebate on the Heritage Agreement land and fencing assistance if required.

2.2 International Obligations There are a number of international agreements and conventions that are relevant to this plan, including the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, Convention on Biological Diversity, Agreements and Convention on Migratory Species and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. Further details on these international agreements are described in Appendices Part A. All of the actions identified in this plan are consistent with Australia’s obligations under these agreements. In addition, the implementation of Australia’s international environmental responsibilities is not affected by this plan.

3. Planning Area Description

3.1 Overview of the AMLR Region The AMLR region, as defined in this plan, covers a total area of 780,626 hectares. The region is based on ecological boundaries, rather than administrative boundaries, consistent with the Draft Biodiversity Strategy for Adelaide and the Mount Lofty Ranges. The region is bounded on the west by the Gulf St Vincent and on the south by the Southern Ocean (Figure 1). In the context of this plan the region does not include marine areas, or coastal areas below the high water mark. Most of the region falls within the jurisdiction of the AMLRNRMB while the eastern flanks fall within the SAMDBNRMB region. The AMLR region covers diverse landscapes and topography. The Mount Lofty Ranges, a well-defined stretch of ancient uplands and hills, forms the spine of the region, extending from the in the north to on the Fleurieu Peninsula. These higher areas (up to 700 metres) are flanked on their west and east by , undulating foothills, and low-lying areas including outwash plains and flats. Coastal landscapes include cliffs, dunes and sheltered tidal zones.13 The AMLR experiences a Mediterranean climate, characterised by hot, dry summers and cool, wet winters.13 Across the region there is significant variation in both temperature and rainfall, with a general trend of increasing rainfall from west to east. This is largely a result of variation in topography. Areas adjacent to Mount Lofty receive the highest average annual rainfall, with Stirling receiving an average rainfall over 1100 mm per annum.38 The combination of relatively high rainfall and hilly topography in the AMLR is uncommon in the State. Areas to the north and west of the AMLR receive the lowest average annual rainfall; Edinburgh on the northern Adelaide Plains receives an average of 440mm per annum.38 The AMLR contains a large number of ephemeral and permanent watercourses, draining from the uplands onto the plains, both west to Gulf St Vincent and east and south-east to the and Lake Alexandrina. There are eight large reservoirs in the region supplying drinking water to Adelaide and surrounding residential areas.13,22 The AMLR comprises land under a variety of tenures and land uses including housing, industry, conservation, forestry, horticulture (viticulture, orchard fruits and vegetable crops), mining, recreation and agriculture (stock grazing, dairy cattle and cropping). The region includes some of the State's most fertile and productive soils, supporting a significant agricultural industry. The region also includes some of the most important tourism areas for SA, such as the city of Adelaide, the , the Barossa Valley and Victor Harbor.22

6 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

Figure 1. The Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges planning region Figure 1. The Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges planning region

7 7 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

There are 139 public conservation areas including National Parks, Conservation Parks, Conservation There are 139 public conservation areas including National Parks, Conservation Parks, Conservation Reserves, Recreation Parks, Local Forest Reserves and Native Forest Reserves in the AMLR; and over 440 Reserves, Recreation Parks, Local Forest Reserves and Native Forest Reserves in the AMLR; and over 440 Heritage Agreements protecting native vegetation on private land.13 The key agencies that manage Heritage Agreements protecting native vegetation on private land.13 The key agencies that manage areas designated for conservation include DEH, Forestry SA (FSA) and SA Water (SAW). The AMLR region areas designated for conservation include DEH, Forestry SA (FSA) and SA Water (SAW). The AMLR region encompasses 28 city and rural local government areas (five partially). The primary land management encompasses 28 city and rural local government areas (five partially). The primary land management agencies and their administrative areas are listed in Appendices Part A. There is also Commonwealth- agencies and their administrative areas are listed in Appendices Part A. There is also Commonwealth- owned land used for a variety of purposes including railways and defence. owned land used for a variety of purposes including railways and defence. The AMLR is the focal point for urban development in SA and is the most densely populated region in The AMLR is the focal point for urban development in SA and is the most densely populated region in SA. The metropolitan area of Adelaide supports over one million people, and the surrounding peri-urban SA. The metropolitan area of Adelaide supports over one million people, and the surrounding peri-urban area of the MLR supports over 100,000 people.13,22 area of the MLR supports over 100,000 people.13,22 The AMLR Region includes parts of five overlapping Aboriginal Nations: , Ngadjuri, Ngarrindjeri, The AMLR Region includes parts of five overlapping Aboriginal Nations: Kaurna, Ngadjuri, Ngarrindjeri, , and Nganguraku. For further information on each Nation, refer to the Four Nations NRM Peramangk, and Nganguraku. For further information on each Nation, refer to the Four Nations NRM Governance Group Consultation and Engagement Protocols.21 Governance Group Consultation and Engagement Protocols.21

3.2 Biodiversity Overview 3.2 Biodiversity Overview The following information is sourced from the Draft Biodiversity Strategy for Adelaide and the Mount The following information is sourced from the Draft Biodiversity Strategy for Adelaide and the Mount Lofty Ranges13, unless otherwise referenced. For an historical development context, also refer to the Lofty Ranges13, unless otherwise referenced. For an historical development context, also refer to the ‘Chronological Snapshot of the AMLR Region’ section in Appendices Part A. ‘Chronological Snapshot of the AMLR Region’ section in Appendices Part A. The AMLR region was naturally biologically rich The AMLR region was naturally biologically rich Prior to European settlement, the AMLR was typified by eucalypt forests and woodlands. The dominant Prior to European settlement, the AMLR was typified by eucalypt forests and woodlands. The dominant vegetation type in the region was woodland communities with grassy understoreys, which covered over vegetation type in the region was woodland communities with grassy understoreys, which covered over one third of the region. Native grasslands were present on the low-lying plains to the east and west of one third of the region. Native grasslands were present on the low-lying plains to the east and west of the Mount Lofty Ranges. the Mount Lofty Ranges. Open forests and woodlands with shrub-dominated understoreys covered approximately a quarter of Open forests and woodlands with shrub-dominated understoreys covered approximately a quarter of the region. Drier open heathy woodlands were common and were found in the northern parts of the the region. Drier open heathy woodlands were common and were found in the northern parts of the ranges and on the Fleurieu Peninsula. Taller heathy open forests were less common and were restricted ranges and on the Fleurieu Peninsula. Taller heathy open forests were less common and were restricted to the high-rainfall, high-elevation areas of the and the southern Fleurieu Peninsula. to the high-rainfall, high-elevation areas of the central ranges and the southern Fleurieu Peninsula. A variety of shrubland vegetation types were also present in the region, although their distribution was A variety of shrubland vegetation types were also present in the region, although their distribution was restricted, covering only two per cent of the region. Shrublands included both arid-style chenopod restricted, covering only two per cent of the region. Shrublands included both arid-style chenopod shrublands on near-coastal plains and high-rainfall sclerophyllous shrublands on the infertile soils of the shrublands on near-coastal plains and high-rainfall sclerophyllous shrublands on the infertile soils of the Fleurieu Peninsula. Fleurieu Peninsula. Mallee was found on the periphery of the region, in the far north and the far east of the AMLR. This Mallee was found on the periphery of the region, in the far north and the far east of the AMLR. This mallee was more typical of regions adjacent to the AMLR than the AMLR proper, and was connected to mallee was more typical of regions adjacent to the AMLR than the AMLR proper, and was connected to expansive distributions of mallee in the mid-north and the Murray mallee. expansive distributions of mallee in the mid-north and the Murray mallee. A variety of riparian and wetland vegetation types are found in the region. Riparian vegetation was A variety of riparian and wetland vegetation types are found in the region. Riparian vegetation was particularly widespread, covering approximately 15 per cent of the region prior to European settlement. particularly widespread, covering approximately 15 per cent of the region prior to European settlement. Wetlands were more restricted, covering only two per cent of the region. Wetlands were more restricted, covering only two per cent of the region. Coastal vegetation was found along the coastline adjacent to Gulf St Vincent and the Southern Ocean. Coastal vegetation was found along the coastline adjacent to Gulf St Vincent and the Southern Ocean. This vegetation covered approximately four per cent of the region at the time of European settlement. This vegetation covered approximately four per cent of the region at the time of European settlement. Coastal vegetation types represented in the region included samphire shrublands, mangrove forests, Coastal vegetation types represented in the region included samphire shrublands, mangrove forests, and sand dune and cliff vegetation. and sand dune and cliff vegetation. The AMLR was naturally species rich, with a large proportion of SA’s native species found in the region. At The AMLR was naturally species rich, with a large proportion of SA’s native species found in the region. At the time of European settlement, over 450 fauna species were found in the region and over 1,500 flora the time of European settlement, over 450 fauna species were found in the region and over 1,500 flora species. There would also have been a diverse range of invertebrates, soil micro-biota and non-vascular species. There would also have been a diverse range of invertebrates, soil micro-biota and non-vascular flora. flora. The region has experienced significant change and remnant vegetation is now highly fragmented The region has experienced significant change and remnant vegetation is now highly fragmented Over the past 170 years, the AMLR region has changed dramatically. Vegetation clearance has been Over the past 170 years, the AMLR region has changed dramatically. Vegetation clearance has been extensive and only 12 per cent of the original native vegetation of the region remains. Vegetation extensive and only 12 per cent of the original native vegetation of the region remains. Vegetation remnants exist as mostly isolated patches of various sizes and conditions embedded in a matrix of urban remnants exist as mostly isolated patches of various sizes and conditions embedded in a matrix of urban and agricultural land uses. Approximately 90 per cent of vegetation remnants are less than 31 hectares and agricultural land uses. Approximately 90 per cent of vegetation remnants are less than 31 hectares in size and half of those (45 per cent) are less than six hectares.37 in size and half of those (45 per cent) are less than six hectares.37 Some large remnants remain in the AMLR; these are typically heathy open forest or woodland remnants Some large remnants remain in the AMLR; these are typically heathy open forest or woodland remnants on infertile soils. The largest native vegetation remnants in the AMLR include Deep Creek Conservation on infertile soils. The largest native vegetation remnants in the AMLR include Deep Creek Conservation Park and the Scott Creek CP/ complex. Park and the Scott Creek CP/Mount Bold Reservoir complex.

8 8 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

The remnant vegetation reflects the selective and disproportionate clearance patterns. Areas of productive soils that were most suitable for agricultural production, i.e. the grassy woodlands and grasslands were most extensively cleared, with approximately eight per cent and less than one per cent (respectively) of their pre-European extent remaining. Approximately 25 per cent of the original heathy/shrubby vegetation of the region remains, although some shrublands that were found on the Adelaide Plains have been extensively cleared. The most dominant vegetation type in the region is now heathy woodland, which has replaced the more extensively cleared grassy woodland as the dominant vegetation type. Approximately one quarter of the remnant vegetation in the AMLR (24 000 ha) is managed for conservation in formal protected areas. These areas predominantly contain heathy open forest and woodland, as they are typically located on infertile soils or steep, inaccessible areas that were not suitable for agricultural use.1 Grassy ecosystems are under-represented in protected areas in the AMLR. The AMLR remains a biodiversity hotspot Despite widespread clearance, the region still represents a broad range of vegetation types, ecological communities and ecosystems, including wet heathy (sclerophyll) open forests, drier heathy woodlands, grassy woodlands, grasslands, mallee, wetlands and various coastal and estuarine ecosystems. This diversity of vegetation types supports a wide range of flora and fauna. Over 450 native fauna species have been recorded from the region, including over 75 per cent of the bird species recorded within SA (including a number of oceanic bird species that may only be occasional visitors to the AMLR). The region also supports approximately 1500 native species. In recognition of the wide diversity of native species, the high levels of endemism and significant threats, the Mount Lofty Ranges was identified (with Kangaroo Island) as one of 15 national biodiversity hotspots in Australia by the Australian Government in 2003. The forests of the Mount Lofty Ranges form an island of habitat The eucalypt forests and woodlands of the region represent an outlier of their wider distribution, forming an ‘island’ separated from the cores of their distribution in eastern Australia by an expanse of semi-arid mallee and dry woodland. Reflecting this, many of the plants and animals that are found in the region represent populations that are isolated from the cores of their distribution, or are present at the very edges of their distribution. The AMLR contains nationally significant habitats The AMLR includes nationally significant wetlands, including critically endangered wetlands of the Fleurieu Peninsula that provide habitat for many significant species, and Barker Inlet which provides habitat for a number of migratory bird species of international significance. The region also includes nationally threatened ecological communities, including swamps of the Fleurieu Peninsula, peppermint box grassy woodland and iron grass natural temperate grasslands. These communities are listed as Critically Endangered. Numerous other threatened ecological communities have been identified and prioritised in this plan. The biodiversity of the AMLR is in a state of decline and degradation Most remnant vegetation in the AMLR is modified to some extent. Many remnants are degraded and in fair or poor condition, and typified by high levels of weed invasion, grazing impacts, reduced native species diversity, and outbreaks of other threats such as dieback. The remaining vegetation in the best condition in the AMLR tends to be the larger remnants of heathy open forest or woodland, which have not been as heavily or extensively modified as other vegetation types. Much of the remnant vegetation in the region has a trend of ongoing or active decline. This trend of decline includes the larger remnants of heathy open forest or woodland which have remained in relatively good condition until this time. The fragmented landscape has affected species’ ability to move freely and disperse across the landscape, utilise seasonal food resources, and take refuge from disturbance events (such as wildfire). For many species, the reduction and fragmentation of vegetation means that there is insufficient habitat and/or fragments are too small and isolated to support viable populations.1 While habitat and connectivity requirements differ for different species, the degree of fragmentation means that physical connections between remnant vegetation is extremely low. Edge effects are also important as habitat quality is generally lower at a patch’s periphery due to disturbance effects of neighbouring (highly modified) systems.37

9 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

The AMLR has many declining and threatened species The widespread vegetation clearance in the AMLR has led to extensive declines in most native species of the region. Many species have become extinct since European settlement, including nine mammal species, three reptile species and 17 bird species. A number of other species are considered to be functionally extinct in the region, most notably a number of threatened bird species. These species now occur only very infrequently in the AMLR and their ecological role in the region has been lost. Some threatened flora species have not been recorded within the region within the last 25 years – it is likely that many of these species no longer exist within the AMLR. Many of the resident native species of the AMLR have declined in abundance and/or distribution since European settlement. Approximately 90 extant native fauna and 290 extant native flora species of the AMLR are included on threatened species lists at a State or National level (this does not include species that are probably extinct but are still listed). The AMLR also contains a large number of species that are declining but are not yet recognised legislatively as ‘threatened’, including a large number of woodland bird species.

3.3 Threats Overview All of the species in this plan are subject to a wide range of threats, which are collectively contributing to species decline. In line with IUCN26 definitions, the direct threats are those that are currently impacting or have the potential to impact within the next five years (i.e. the intended duration of the plan). The direct threats assessed for the species and broad vegetation groups in this plan are described below in the following sub-sections. There are ten broad threat categories which are in most cases further broken down into sub-categories specific to the AMLR region. It is acknowledged that some threats are poorly understood, unable to be controlled or considered of low overall importance to the successful recovery of species, and hence have not been assessed. Some threats that are currently considered low priority may be ‘emerging’ threats, and will be more important in the future. It is also likely that some threats remain unknown. In consideration of this, threatened species recovery usually includes ex-situ conservation related actions in conjunction with threat abatement, survey and research actions, particularly for priority threatened species. Such actions may involve a range measures (e.g. propagule collection and storage, captive breeding or translocation). It is acknowledged that some species are so critically endangered that best efforts to counteract current and potential threats will not improve their status or even guarantee their long-term survival. The terms ‘extinction threshold’ and ‘extinction debt’ are often used to describe this situation, whereby actions that may result in local or total species extinctions may have already occurred, with the species only surviving due to the time lag in the extinction process.20,36 Many species are at continued risk of decline because populations are small, recruitment is low, and habitat remnants are small in size, fragmented, degraded and isolated (see Section 3.4). Investment in threat management therefore needs to be combined with strategic and large-scale habitat re- establishment over the longer-term (see Section 7). There are inextricable links between many threats, further complicated by the potential for threats to operate synergistically and antagonistically. For example, grazing of stock may alter habitat conditions (e.g. damage understorey vegetation) and cause nutrient enrichment of soils, in turn promoting weed invasion and contributing to the pollution of waterways. Also, the impacts of grazing are likely to be exacerbated during periods of drought. Therefore, there are difficulties in assigning threat ratings and using results of a threat assessment to directly inform management priorities. Threat categories, which are considered highly interactive with other threats, and/or have a high level of assessment uncertainty due to lack of knowledge, have been flagged in various summary tables in subsequent sections. Population growth is perhaps one of the most fundamental underlying ‘drivers’ of threats to biodiversity. In the AMLR region, its effect will almost certainly increase in the future. For example, in 2005 SA’s population was 1.54 million. The State government’s target population by 2050 is 2 million (with an interim target of 1.64 million by 2014).23 Much of this population growth will be in and around Adelaide, and will influence the impact of many direct threats to species and ecological communities in the AMLR (e.g. agricultural intensification, recreation, water management and use, residential development and pollution).

10 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

The threat assessment methodology and results are shown in Sections 4.4 and 5.3 respectively. Additional details are presented in the Appendices Part A. Further species-specific threat information is provided in the regional species profiles in Appendices Part B.

3.3.1 Agriculture This broad category includes threats from farming, e.g. cropping, grazing, market gardening, orchards, aquaculture; and the effects of agricultural expansion, intensification and change in agricultural land use. Specific threat categories assessed in the plan are:

Grazing & Disturbance by Stock This threat category covers the impacts of grazing from farmed stock (e.g. cattle, sheep, goats, deer, and alpaca). Grazing by native and other (non-domesticated) exotic herbivores is covered in Section 3.3.6. The impacts of this threat overlap with several disturbance-related threat categories particularly ‘Water Management & Use’, Inappropriate Fire Regimes’ and ‘Weed Invasion’. Grazing can have both positive and negative effects on habitats. Positive effects include stimulation of meristematic growth in native grasses following the removal of plant biomass. In altered agricultural landscapes, where native herbivores are lacking and nutrient levels are high, livestock grazing may have a positive benefit in controlling weed abundance to the benefit of native grasses. Complete exclusion of stock grazing (in the absence of other herbivores) can result in the overgrowth of vegetation (commonly weeds) and effectively alter the habitat conditions which support threatened species. Vegetation that is not subject to any form of disturbance may therefore suffer a reduction in native species diversity over time. It is recognised that appropriate grazing regimes may have a place in the management of some habitat types, e.g. grassy woodlands and wetlands. However, implementing grazing as a management tool requires complementary research and monitoring. Negative effects of livestock grazing include changes to vegetation structure and composition, and changes to the physical and chemical properties of soil. Unlike native herbivores, most domestic stock are hard-hoofed and cause significantly more damage to soil structure from compaction, and damage to native plant populations by trampling. The increase in nutrients from manure may be detrimental to some vegetation types and affect the quality of nearby surface waters. Of particular concern in the AMLR is the inappropriate grazing of wetland and riparian habitats. Regular grazing of areas, particularly during the active growing season and when seedlings are present can significantly reduce reproductive success and recruitment of threatened plants. A reduction or removal of understorey habitat (e.g. native shrubs, herbs and grasses) can reduce foraging and nesting sites, reduce shelter, and subsequently increase the risk of predation of native fauna. The other major influence of livestock grazing is its interaction with weed invasion. Livestock grazing can exacerbate weed spread through seed dispersal, soil and vegetation disturbance, and nutrient enrichment. The intensity of positive or negative effects of grazing is related to vegetation type, stocking rate, seasonal timing of grazing and climatic effects such as drought.5 Agricultural Intensification This category has only been assessed at the broad vegetation group level. The impacts of this threat overlap with the threat categories of ‘Pollution & Poisoning’, ‘Incompatible Site Management’, ‘Water Management & Use’ and ‘Weed Invasion’. The AMLR continues to experience changes in land use patterns associated with the growing human population. In addition to ongoing urbanisation of the region, there is a shift towards smaller rural blocks and more intensive agricultural operations (e.g. cropping, improved pastures, vineyards, market gardens, orchards and aquaculture). Related threats include: high chemical input (e.g. fertiliser, herbicide, pesticide, fungicide) causing nutrient enrichment or poisoning; legal and illegal removal of native vegetation or indirect loss of vegetation, fauna, fungi and micro-organisms from associated impacts (e.g. related to chemical use, centre pivot irrigation, agricultural management practices); degradation of surrounding areas (e.g. spread of olives from orchards); the displacement of threatened resident fauna (because habitats are no longer suitable); and threats related to high water use (covered by Section 3.3.7). Intensive agricultural operations are generally of monoculture form, with little structural and compositional diversity, reducing the likelihood of these areas supporting native fauna. The replacement of pasture with crop, and the seasonal change in cover associated with crop harvesting, impact on the ability of these areas to function as habitat (a particular threat for grassland reptile species of the Adelaide Plains). This category is not intended to cover stock grazing, which is covered above.

11 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

3.3.2 Biological Resource Use This broad category covers threats from consumptive use of ‘wild’ biological resources including both deliberate and unintentional effects. Illegal Hunting or Collection This sub-category includes the killing or capture of threatened animals, collection of threatened animal products, and the gathering/harvesting of threatened plants (or associated fungi) for commercial, recreational, subsistence, research, persecution or cultural reasons. Removal of individuals has the potential to directly impact upon total population numbers, reduce genetic variability within populations and reduce the ability of threatened species to successfully reproduce. This is a particular issue for species that already have seriously low numbers, where each individual is extremely important to the survival of the species. Past Illegal collection is thought to have contributed to the decline and extinction of sub-populations of some orchid species. Native orchids are at particular risk from illegal collection due to their small size and attractive flowers. Illegal capture of birds and reptiles and the collection of eggs for the wildlife trade is a potential threat. The exact locations of species are not provided within this plan, in an attempt to provide protection against the threat of illegal collection. Persecution may be an issue for the carpet python, tiger snake and pygmy copper head. Illegal fishing and accidental by-catch are issues for some protected native fish (see also fishing & harvesting of aquatic resources). Firewood Harvest/ Rock Removal Legal and illegal harvest of dead and live timber for firewood, and removal of rocks from the landscape (e.g. ‘tidying up’ of agricultural paddocks, moss rocks for landscaping), reduce the availability of habitat for fauna and the invertebrates on which they feed, and can alter micro-habitat conditions for native flora. In addition, at the ecosystem level, woody debris and its decomposition plays an important role in nutrient cycles, and its presence is likely to be a factor in determining the ‘health’ of remnants.5 Removal of woody debris reduces the foraging and perching sites available for birds and may reduce the availability of hollow-nesting sites. Birds of grassy woodland systems, such as the hooded robin require structural complexity in habitats provided by fallen timber.5 Fallen timber and rocks are a key habitat component for a number of the small reptiles. Other indirect impacts of firewood collection include the spread of weeds and pathogens (e.g. Phytophthora).5 The loss of woody debris can also lead to increased competition for the remaining hollows, particularly where they are used by introduced species.5 The level of impact of this threat in the AMLR remains unclear. Management guidelines for firewood collection exist at the national and State levels to encourage the maintenance of essential habitats and biodiversity.2,9 Fishing & Harvesting of Aquatic Resources The removal of aquatic resources can reduce food and habitat availability for threatened species. For example, fishing may reduce the food supply for threatened wetland birds. Current NPW Act threatened species schedules do not reflect the threatened status of the freshwater fish included in this plan; however some species are afforded a level of protection under the Fisheries Management Act 2007. Without further controls, threatened fish populations risk further decline. See also ‘Removal of Snags’.

3.3.3 Climate Change, Drought & Severe Weather This category includes the threat of long-term climatic change which may be linked to global warming, and other severe climatic/weather events, e.g.  Droughts - periods during which rainfall is below the normal range of variation (severe lack of rain, loss of surface water sources)  Temperature extremes - periods during which temperatures are outside the normal range of variation (heat waves, cold spells), and  Storms & flooding - extreme precipitation and/or wind events (thunderstorms, hailstorms, dust storms, landslides), and higher storm surges along coastal margins. Over the next 25 years, the region is expected to experience a drying and warming trend, with temperatures predicted to rise by up to 1.5°C and rainfall predicted to decrease by up to 10 per cent.4,33 Rainfall is likely to become less reliable and rainfall patterns are likely to change, e.g. spring rainfall is expected to drop and more extreme rainfall events.1,33

12 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

Climate change has the capacity to be a major direct threat to biodiversity and exacerbate a range of existing threats. The issue of climate change is much bigger than can be dealt with in this plan. Within the next five years (i.e. the life of this plan) the likely immediate effects whether due to changing climate or cyclic events will be related to drying trends. The threat assessment in this plan has been based on the presumption that the region will continue to experience dry conditions; and that species with narrow or water-dependent habitat requirements will be most affected. Due to the lack of regional-specific quantitative data, this was a qualitative assessment based on a ‘best guess’ approach and thus should only be used as an indication of possible impact. Some initial modelling work has been done however significantly more work is required to accurately predict the impact of climate change scenarios on individual species. DEH and the University of Adelaide have formed a collaborative partnership to further progress this work, which should be used to inform implementation and future plan reviews. Given the small size and isolated (sometimes single) known occurrences of species in this plan, stochastic weather events and prolonged drought conditions could potentially extirpate vulnerable populations or habitats. Unlike the other assessed threats, drought and severe weather is largely uncontrollable, and the cause is not human related, unless linked to the phenomenon of ‘climate change’. While native species have evolved to cope with large year-to-year climatic variability and change over long time spans, they have limited capacity to adapt over the predicted short timeframes. This is especially in relation to the decrease in annual average rainfall, and increase in average annual temperature and number of extreme hot days. Species and ecological communities with specific and water-related habitat requirements, and species on the edge of their geographic range (temperate outliers) are considered at particular risk. Small population sizes, habitat fragmentation, limited ranges, and/or complex ecological interrelationships may further reduce the species ability to adapt to climate change. Many of the other threats may also increase in frequency and severity with climate change (e.g. weed invasion, water management and use and inappropriate fire regimes).31 In the coastal zone, potential impacts of climate change include sea level rise, changes in the frequency, intensity and patterns of storm events and associated storm surges and flooding, which could make already degraded coastal areas even more vulnerable. Beaches are likely to recede and fore dunes and cliffs erode.1 Salt marsh complexes are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise if barriers (such as levee banks) prevent species migration (a particular issue for the bead glasswort, included in this plan). Even very small sea level changes will impact on the salt marshes if they cannot retreat. In the region, this is compounded by geological subsidence which exacerbates sea level rise.6 The capacity for habitat shifting (e.g. coastal habitats to retreat in response to sea level rise, inland habitats to shift in response to a changing climate) is limited by the developed nature of the region, small land parcels, varying land tenure, and the timeframes involved. ‘Biodiversity corridors’ have been proposed to aid in facilitating species movement in response to climate change, however species’ response to climate change is poorly understood and there remain significant challenges ahead to model, predict and best manage the impacts. Land-use impacts related to management activities to sequester carbon will also require significant planning resources in the future to consider impacts on threatened species and communities. As the threat analysis results in this plan highlight, climate change will be a very significant issue for many threatened species and ecological communities over the medium and longer term. Further, as a threat it directly interacts with (and will exacerbate) other significant threats in the region, requiring considerable management and planning resources to address.

3.3.4 Energy Production & Mining This broad category includes threats related to the production of non-biological resources. Energy production operations (e.g. wind farms, desalinisation plants) were not identified as a specific threat but could pose a threat in the future. Mining & Quarrying Isolated mining and quarrying operations (rock, sand and salt) exist in the AMLR and the potential exists for further mining activity in the region. Current operations directly threaten some of the plants, animals and ecological communities covered by this plan. Mining activities near AMLR waterways is a threat to some freshwater fish.

13 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

3.3.5 Human Intrusions & Disturbance This category covers threats from human activities associated with non-consumptive uses of biological resources. Recreational Activities and Site Disturbance The use of natural environments for recreation, work, research and other activities, can destroy and disturb habitats and species. Examples of recreational activities include walking, dog walking, hiking, rock-climbing, camping, bird watching, horse riding, mountain biking, motorbike riding, off-road vehicle use and motor boating. Specific threats include: destruction of, and physical damage to plants (e.g. trampling, crushing, uprooting); soil compaction; soil disturbance, affecting soil moisture and encouraging the establishment of weeds; degradation of habitats; disturbance of native fauna, sometimes causing them to vacate habitats; inadvertent introduction of weeds and pathogens. Populations on public land close to roads, tracks, and walking trails tend to be more susceptible to trampling by the general public.

3.3.6 Invasive & Other Problematic Species & Genes This category covers non-native and native plants, animals and pathogens that have or are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity following their introduction, spread and/or increase in abundance. The introduction of biological controls and genetically modified organisms are not identified as particular threats in this plan but could pose issues in the future. The following sub- categories were assessed: Competition with honey bees; predation by European fox; predation by feral & uncontrolled cats; predation & disturbance by uncontrolled dogs; predation & competition by introduced birds; predation & competition by introduced fish; grazing & disturbance by rabbits; grazing & disturbance by (feral) deer and goats. Impacts include grazing (i.e. herbivory), trampling, predation, competition for resources and disturbance. Introduced predators particularly cats (Felis catus) and foxes (Vulpes vulpes), have contributed to the decline and probably extinction of a number of the region’s fauna species. Predators may take eggs, juveniles or adults. Small fauna species that live, forage or nest on or close to the ground, and survive in small isolated populations are most at risk.5 The impact of fox and cat predation was particularly difficult to assess due to significant knowledge gaps concerning the actual impact of feral predators on threatened fauna populations. In the AMLR, detailed information on the impacts of introduced predators such as foxes and cats is limited. It is possible that Black Rats (Rattus rattus) also play a role as nest predators, although their impact is unknown and has not been assessed. Given the highly urbanised character of parts of the AMLR, and the high incidence of companion animals, the importance of cat predation to some declining birds could be significant.5 Domestic dogs (Canis spp.) are also identified as a potential disturbance or predator of some threatened fauna species. Introduced fish (e.g. Gambusia holbrookii) are known to predate on native fish species. The proliferation of exotic honey bees (Apis spp.) may affect the availability of nesting hollows for some threatened bird species. The AMLR is subject to spatial and temporal variation in grazing pressure linked to climatic conditions. Several threatened species within this plan are susceptible to the impacts of grazing by introduced herbivores. The most severe impacts from introduced species are considered to be from rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), but hares (Lepus capensis europaeus), feral deer (Cervidae family) and goats (Capra hircus) are also significant issues. Invertebrates also have impacts on some species (see category ‘Disease & Insect Damage’). In many cases further investigation is needed to determine exactly which grazing animal is impacting on particular species. Disease & Insect Damage The nature and impact of disease affecting native wildlife, and the damage caused by invertebrates, is not well understood. Disease and insect damage can be a sign of a system ‘out of balance’. There are a number of diseases that have the potential to impact on native vegetation. These have been included under the broad threat category of Phytophthora (see below). The threat of Phytophthora has only been assessed at the broad vegetation group level, because the susceptibility of the threatened species in this plan is not known. Toxoplasmosis (a disease carried by cats) is a possible but largely unknown threat to the southern brown bandicoot. The disease has been detected in Victorian populations (Long, K pers. comm.). Chytrid fungus is a possible threat to the brown toadlet. The introduced Portuguese millipede (Ommatoiulus

14 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014 moreleti) can occur in plague numbers and may have significant consequences for litter decomposition and nutrient cycling (Mitchell, J. pers comm.). Pink gums (Eucalyptus fasciculosa) and red gums (E. camaldulensis) in grassy woodland systems can be susceptible to insect attack. The poor condition of many Correa calycina var. calycina plants in the AMLR is considered to be due to insect damage. The term dieback has been used to describe plants which are suffering from a combination of visible and physical factors for which causal factors are unknown but may include insect attack, increased soil nutrients, waterlogging, lack of available soil moisture, soil compaction and other factors. Further investigations are required to identify specific causal agents. Phytophthora Due to the lack of species-specific knowledge of Phytophthora susceptibility, the threat of Phytophthora has been assessed at the broad vegetation group level (based on expert opinion). However, in lieu of species-specific information on Phytophthora susceptibility, inference has been drawn about Phytophthora risk based on species’ occurrence within two kilometres of known or suspected Phytophthora infestations (based on mapped infestations as at April 2008, see also Velzeboer et al. 2005).39 This information has been included in the regional species profiles (Appendices Part B). This category covers the impacts associated with Phytophthora and a number of other poorly known diseases that may be having an impact in the AMLR. Phytophthora is a microscopic soil and waterborne mould which attacks the root system causing disease and death of some native plant species. Phytophthora is native to South East Asia and is believed to have been introduced into Australia shortly after European settlement. It occurs throughout Australia in open forests, woodlands and heathlands. Of the 32 species of Phytophthora in Australia, P. cinnamomi is the most widespread and destructive species.5,29 Areas receiving 400mm or more average annual rainfall with poor draining and acidic to neutral soils (generally loam and clays) are typically considered at risk. There are several known infestations of P. cinnamomi in the AMLR, and based on rainfall and soil characteristics, most of the region (except for the far eastern boundary) has the potential for Phytophthora to become established (see Velzeboer et al. 2005).39 The level of infestation and its impact vary significantly at local and regional scales. There are difficulties in identifying areas affected without soil testing.5 Many recreational activities (e.g. bush- walking) can promote the spread of Phytophthora. Similarly, management activities including track maintenance or fire suppression works can pose a significant risk. Species in SA which are highly susceptible to Phytophthora include the grass-tree (Xanthorrhoea spp.), Banksia spp., Conebush (Isopogon ceratophyllus), many Fabaceae spp., Acacia spp., heaths (Epacridaceae) and eucalyptus species belonging to the stringybark group ( and E. baxteri).5,29 The susceptibility of the threatened plants in this plan to Phytophthora is largely unknown, highlighting the need for further research. Even if the threatened plants are not directly susceptible, they could indirectly be at risk if the surrounding native vegetation is affected by the disease, modifying the structure and composition of plant communities. This also has the potential to affect threatened fauna habitat. The level of impact to fauna species occupying Phytophthora infected habitat will vary depending on their specific requirements and the level of infestation. For example, some Banksia species are an important nectar resource for honeyeater species at a particular time of year. In the fragmented landscape of the AMLR, small remnants of Banksia vegetation may be key sites, and their loss due to Phytophthora infestation would be detrimental to specific honeyeaters which utilise them.5 Management guidelines to abate the threat of Phytophthora have been developed at both State and national levels.18,29 Control of Phytophthora is difficult, so current emphasis is to limit the spread of the pathogen. Known infestations in the AMLR have been mapped and Phytophthora ‘Risk Management Zones’ designated (though further work is required to refine the mapping to improve relevance to management).5,29 Grazing & Disturbance by Kangaroos The grazing regimes of native herbivores have altered with both increases and decreases in their abundance in particular areas. Generally, grazing by kangaroos appears to have increased from natural levels, primarily because more watering points (such as dams) are available, dingos have been excluded, and because they favour mixed habitats of remnant vegetation and cleared pasture. In high numbers, kangaroos can cause significant damage to plant populations by grazing and trampling. Problematic Native Species (Other) This category includes native plants, animals (other than kangaroos), pathogens and other microbes that are ‘out-of-balance’ or ‘released’ directly or indirectly due to human activities.

15 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

There are a range of native species (indigenous or introduced to the region) considered to be having adverse impact in certain situations on threatened species or ecological communities in this plan:  Coral fern (Gleichenia microphylla) is a declining native species in some wetlands. In others, a lack of disturbance has promoted its overgrowth, shading out smaller wetland flora. Some known native orchid populations have not been relocated since the exclusion of grazing and subsequent coral fern overgrowth.  Warm conditions and nutrient inputs can promote algal overgrowth, impacting on wetland systems.  The common brush-tail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) is considered rare in SA. In AMLR however, it may compete with other native species for nest-hollows and is a known nest- predator.  A number of native birds have benefited from the vast change to natural landscapes, e.g. corella (Cacatua sanguinea), noisy Miner (Manorina melanocephala) and rainbow lorikeet (Trichoglossus haematodus). These are generally aggressive species and have competitively excluded other native birds from otherwise suitable habitats.  Some planted garden plants hybridize with indigenous plant species (e.g. Grevillea rosmarinifolia hybridizing with G. lavandulacea).  Mistletoes (Amyema spp.) are parasitic plants that exist in balance in healthy natural ecosystems. Infestation of mistletoe can result in the death of the host tree; this is generally regarded as a secondary effect of vegetation already under stress.  Native bluebells (Billardiera heterophylla) is a naturalised native plant from that can spread rapidly after fire to the detriment of other vegetation.  The (Phascolarctos cinereus) is not considered to be indigenous to the AMLR. Indications are that numbers are increasing, with the potential to impact on the health of grassy woodland systems as has occurred on Kangaroo Island.  Sea lettuce (Ulva sp.), a semi-aquatic species, can grow prolifically to the disadvantage of other aquatic and coastal species.  Various non-local Acacia species grow well in the AMLR environment (particularly in coastal zones) and are considered environmental weeds (e.g. Acacia baileyana and Acacia longifolia ssp. longifolia). Weed Invasion European settlement introduced many new species of plants to the Australian landscape. Climatic conditions in south-eastern Australia have favoured the establishment of plants of Mediterranean and southern African origin, and many of these are now common components of vegetation communities. Many introduced plants have become agricultural, horticultural and environmental weeds.5 Many weed species are impacting or have the potential to impact significantly on the growth, recruitment and survival of the species in this plan because of their ability to: invade and spread rapidly within native vegetation, persist for long periods of time (including in the soil seed bank), out-compete native plant species and suppress the growth and germination of native plants, change soil chemistry, and alter habitats.1 They may also cause secondary impacts, which include the alteration of hydrological cycles, fire regimes and soil pH and nutrient levels. One hundred and thirty environmental weeds are recognised for the AMLR including 11 Weeds of National Significance. Different weeds pose a different level of risk and this may vary depending on location and local conditions. Examples of significant weeds include gorse (Ulex europaeus), broom (Cytisus scoparius, ), blackberry (Rubus spp.), bridal creeper (Asparagus asparagoides), bridal veil (Asparagus declinatus), boneseed (Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp. monilifera), olives (Olea europaea) and many grasses such as perennial veldt grass (Ehrharta calycina).5 The risk of new weed incursions is ever present and should be a priority for management in event of occurrence. A list of the priority threatening weeds summarised by broad vegetation group is provided in Appendices Part A Any weeds that alter characteristics of fauna habitats could be considered detrimental to declining species. Alterations can include the replacement of food plants, invasion of the ground layer and indirect effects such as the smothering of native vegetation. The effects of weeds on insect abundance and thus insectivorous species is not clear.5 Ironically, in certain situations, some weed species provide alternative food or shelter for fauna species and their removal can have negative consequences resulting in temporary or permanent loss of food or

16 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

shelter. In some locations weeds provide the only suitable habitat and without them fauna can be exposed to predation and lose nesting sites. Blackberries are the prime example, known to be used by bandicoots and some birds for shelter where surrounding areas are cleared. Elimination of the potential negative consequences of weed removal requires staged management, integrated with habitat restoration.5

3.3.7 Natural System Modifications This category covers threats from actions that convert or degrade habitat in service of ‘managing’ natural or semi-natural systems, often to improve human welfare. Fire Management Activities Fire is a natural process and has an important role to play in maintaining ecosystem processes. The AMLR is a naturally fire prone area and has experienced a number of serious fire events, most notable the1983 Ash Wednesday fires. Fire regimes in the region have been altered dramatically from pre-European times.5 In the densely populated AMLR region, wildfire is quickly suppressed to protect built assets and human life. Under natural regimes, grassy woodlands probably burnt every 3 to 5 years, but now these systems are hardly ever burnt (A. Prescott pers. comm.). Suppression of fire has meant a build up in fuel loads, which increases the risk of intense fires. Fire management is how humans manage fire regimes, either through introducing fire (e.g. by prescribed burning) or by reducing the likelihood of bushfire starting and/or spreading. This category includes prescribed burning, and other activities undertaken to manage the threat or suppression of fire, i.e. slashing and clearing litter to reduce fuel loads and bulldozing of vegetation for fire breaks. Fire management activities can also directly affect threatened plant populations. There is also a risk of vehicles driving on or through threatened plant populations and/or habitat during fire management activities. The timing, size and intensity of prescription burning are important to achieve species benefits (e.g. plant regeneration) and reduce possible negative impacts. Response and sensitivity to fire is species-specific. Available evidence suggests that single prescribed burns (limited extent, patchy, and which do not destroy canopy or kill trees) do not have major impacts on birds. However, single prescribed burns can be a problem in fragmented landscapes if the burn’s extent covers habitat critical to the survival of species. Species recovery may be limited by their inability to disperse in and out of the burnt area.5 Fire can reduce flowering and cause dense regeneration. Frequent burning, especially during flowering time could reduce reproductive success and recruitment. Burning could also increase the proliferation of fire- stimulated weeds. A strategic prescription burning program is implemented by the DEH, based on the best available ecological information. See also ‘Inappropriate Fire Regimes’. Inappropriate Fire Regimes The term ‘fire regime’ refers to the interaction of fire intensity, interval, season and extent. Human- induced influences to fire regimes include landscape alteration and fragmentation of native vegetation, fire management practices (such as prescribed burning and fire suppression), accidental fire ignition and arson. Fire regimes have changed substantially since pre-European times, and it is not possible to re- instate them due to current land uses and landscape modification. Fire can have a direct impact on a species or its habitat and result in long-term changes to species’ habitat. However for many species, fire per se is not a threatening process, but inappropriate fire regimes may contribute to their decline through:  Changes in composition and/or structure of vegetation, either through recruitment or lack of regeneration of fire-dependent plant species, or mortality of fire-sensitive plant species  Increased weed invasion following fire  Loss of woody debris, and in some situations hollows (fire also can enhance hollow development)  Reduction in leaf litter, and  Decline in invertebrate abundance (as a food resource). The difficulty in assessing inappropriate fire regimes as a threat is that suppression of fire can be as detrimental as too frequent fires. Since little is known about the appropriate regime for different species particularly in fragmented landscapes, the potential for negative outcomes from management actions is high. A greater level of understanding is required to achieve effective management.5 The ecological effects of altered fire regimes are numerous and complex. For example, high frequency fire can disrupt the life cycles of plants and animals, alter the structure of habitat and obliterate fire

17 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

sensitive species of plants and animals from an area. Several fires in close succession can prevent plants and animals from returning to the area (particularly in fragmented landscapes such as the AMLR), and prevent soil seed set.1 Species’ life history traits have a strong influence on the ability to persist or recolonise after fire.5 Inappropriate fire regimes can pose a significant threat to threatened plant species that may rely on a fire event to regenerate. Fire events occurring either too often or too infrequently can severely impact upon the demography of threatened species populations. Similarly, ill-timed fire may potentially threaten populations by damaging flowering or germinating plants. Incompatible Site Management This category includes a range of actions that convert or degrade habitat in service of managing natural systems to improve human welfare. Common actions include slashing, mowing, fencing, track development and herbicide use, constituting either legal or illegal incremental vegetation clearance. This category also includes impact associated with a lack of site management, a particular issue for coastal crown land and ‘lifestyle’ blocks; and inappropriate revegetation (e.g. over-planting grasslands/grassy woodlands, or using inappropriate species). Incompatible site management may be intentional or may occur because land managers are unaware that their actions or lack of action threaten native species or represent ‘inappropriate management’. For example, broad acre spraying is widely practised without knowledge or consideration of the off- target impacts. To complicate matters, slashing and mowing may have a role in the management of some modified ecosystems, though further research is needed. Recent studies suggest that an appropriate mowing regime may have beneficial effects (superior to those of a grazing treatment) for rare or threatened species.28,40 Some of the species in this plan occur in areas of mosaic farmland and are sensitive to agricultural expansion, intensification and change in agricultural land use (e.g. crops, vineyards and orchards) altering the already modified habitats on which they rely. Grassland ecosystems may be more susceptible to incompatible site management activities because they are less conspicuous and lack public profile. In the eastern flanks of the region, some grassland areas are being planted to tree crops such as olives, or other woody non-grassland tree species. Some threatened species only occur, or have significant populations in areas managed for commercial forestry (pine and eucalypt plantations). The felling and inappropriate management of forestry plantations (e.g. firebreaks, herbicide use, vehicle tracks) can pose a significant threat for some threatened species. There are a number of pending applications for the planting of blue gum and other timber plantations. Expansion of private forestry operations has the potential to impact on native vegetation (particularly wetlands), either directly, or indirectly through shading or alteration of hydrological regimes (included under the threat category ‘Water Management & Use’). Removal of Snags Submerged wood and debris are removed from freshwater to improve conditions for boating. This activity results in the alteration and removal of aquatic habitats. Whilst this threat fits under the general category of incompatible site management, it has been assessed separately because it relates only to aquatic species. Water Management & Use The impacts of this threat interact with several other threat categories particularly ‘Climate Change, Drought & Severe Weather’, ‘Incompatible Site Management’, Weed Invasion’ and ‘Grazing and Disturbance’ categories. The regulation of rivers and diversion of water for urban supplies, industry and agricultural production have significantly altered natural flow regimes. Up to 80% of the water flows in AMLR have been diverted (e.g. through reservoirs, dams, stormwater drains and levee banks), significantly reducing the downstream flows, and therefore the viability of ecosystems. A number of once permanent streams are now ephemeral.5 Groundwater extraction has resulted in the reduction and loss of aquifers and has contributed to rising saline water tables. Degradation of the vegetation cover and soil surface of catchments, associated with urbanisation and agriculture has disrupted the linkage between streams and their catchments and has lead to nutrient and sediment run-off, decreasing water quality. The conversion of waterways to channels can accelerate water flows, exacerbates flooding and erosion and prevents the deposition of sediments on the floodplains and in wetland ecosystems.5

18 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

Water management and use have altered habitats at localised and large scales (e.g. drying of naturally damp areas and loss of pools). In addition to drying of habitat, reduced flow volume can lead to reduced flushing of salts, altered geomorphology (e.g. reduction in channel depth, encroachment of reeds), reduced aquifer recharge and direct ecological implications. Loss of water can also reduce the magnitude of particular flow events limiting the size of floods and the amount of wetted habitat.25 Species requiring wet or moist conditions, and with narrow habitat requirements will be most impacted by water management and use. Impacts will likely be more pronounced during dry seasons and extended drought periods where human use tends to exacerbate already low levels. Although hydrological changes have primarily impacted on wetland and riparian areas, impacts are also evident in other areas of the AMLR. Pink gums are showing signs of prolonged stress in some areas (A. Prescott pers. comm.). Continued drought conditions over the next five years could see the local extinction of threatened freshwater fish populations in the AMLR. The recent prolonged period of low rainfall highlighted critical deficiencies in water management to maintain fish habitat in the Lower Murray region.25 Surface and groundwater use is controlled through Water Allocation Plans (WAP) for a large part of the AMLR region. The NRM Act requires that the water needs of the environment must be taken into account when determining the allocation of water for other users. Forestry is not currently considered as a water affecting activity, therefore associated water use is not factored into allocations. However, plantation forestry may alter hydrological conditions within wetlands and riparian zones by altering groundwater and surface water flow.35 A Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP) is being developed by the EPA, AMLRNRMB and other partners for the MLR watershed. The plan, which will be revised every seven years, will address the management of environmental values to protect and improve water quality. In 2008 a WQIP was finalised for the Port Waterways area. As described above, SA’s ambitious population targets will mean significant population increases in and around Adelaide. Therefore, water security and quality is a critical issue. Already scarce water resources are anticipated to become further stretched, and with the combined impact of climate change, water dependent species and ecosystems could suffer significant loss.

3.3.8 Pollution This category covers threats from introduction of exotic and/or excess materials, including chemicals, solid rubbish or energy, from point and non-point sources. Pollution & Poisoning (chemical, solid waste and other) Pollution comes from point and non-point sources and includes: household sewage; garbage and solid waste; urban waste water; agricultural, industrial, mining, military, fire management and forestry effluents (e.g. toxic chemicals); air-borne pollutants (e.g. vehicle fumes, smoke from fires); discharge from waste treatment plants, septic systems, untreated sewage; application and run-off of fertilisers and pesticides; spills and leakage from fuel tanks and illegal disposal of waste. Potential impacts include: fouling, sedimentation and nutrient loading of waterways, ground and surface water; damage to soils; poisoning (causing reduced vigour or death to wildlife); physical damage, entanglement or disturbance to wildlife and disruption to animal migration patterns. This category includes off-target impacts caused to native species associated with the use of herbicides, fungicides and pesticides. It also includes the potential impacts of use of surfactants and fire retardants near waterways. Pollution of waterways is identified as a threat to water skinks and some wetland birds included in this plan. The general use of farming chemicals is considered to threaten some reptile species.

3.3.9 Residential & Commercial Development This category includes threats from human settlements or other non-agricultural land uses with a substantial footprint. As the AMLR region is the central focus of population growth and development in the State, threatened species that occur in areas not formally protected for conservation face ongoing risk from: housing and urban development (e.g. construction of buildings and associated infrastructure such as roads, utility lines and septic systems); commercial & industrial development (e.g. factories, power stations, airports, landfills); tourism & recreation related development (e.g. golf courses, sports fields, campgrounds); and other non-agricultural land uses with a substantial footprint. This category is intended to cover the physical impact of potential development over the next five years. Impacts of other impacts associated with such developments are covered under other relevant threat categories such as ‘Water Management & Use’, ‘Weed Invasion’ or predation-related categories.

19 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

Native vegetation clearance has been restricted in SA since 1985, and is currently regulated under the NV Act. While this largely prevents the clearance of broad-scale remnant native vegetation in SA, legal and illegal incremental vegetation clearance for purposes including housing development, road and track construction and maintenance, firebreaks, and fencing is still a significant threat. Clearance of habitat critical to the survival of any of the species in this plan could have a significant impact on their long-term survival. The assessment of the scope of this threat was informed by spatial analysis using treated and filtered species data and land development zone data; specifically rural living zones, vacant residential and deferred urban zones. Note, the impact of existing residential areas was not included in the analysis, as the objective was to mainly assess new and potential development in the near future.

3.3.10 Transportation & Service Corridors This category includes threats from transport corridors and the vehicles that use them including associated wildlife mortality. Road, Rail & Utilities Maintenance Activities A number of significant plant populations occur along roadsides, near vehicle tracks on public land and along railway lines. Maintenance activities, such as road widening, grading, bituminising, stock-piling materials, trench digging, constructing turnout drains, vegetation trimming, slashing, and spraying herbicide can have severe impacts on these populations, which in most cases are already in a degraded state. These activities can also induce weed and pathogen incursion. The same threats apply to populations occurring within power, water and telecommunication easements. Note there is some interaction with the threat categories ‘Incompatible site management’ and ‘Pollution’ and ‘Poisoning’. Road-kill Vehicle associated mortality is considered a low threat for most threatened fauna. However species like the Heath Goanna and Carpet Python which already have highly compromised populations in the AMLR and travel across fragmented landscapes are at significant risk. The Tawny Frogmouth is a common casualty of vehicles travelling at night.

3.4 Ecological Stresses Overview Ecological stresses are degraded key ecological processes, caused by a range of threats. Importantly, for the AMLR, the broad-scale clearance of vegetation, a historical threat, is the fundamental cause of the majority of ecological stresses. However, there are complex inter-relationships between ‘ecological stresses’ and the threats which are the sources of stresses (see Appendices Part A). As described in Section 3.3, fundamental drivers of historical and current threats (such as population increase or land use policy) were not analysed in detail in this plan. Vegetation clearance has resulted in the loss and fragmentation of habitat, leading to a range of serious stresses and which has also compounded many other direct threats:  Decline in habitat condition and native species diversity;  Local extinctions and reduced population sizes, at increased risk of stochastic extinctions;  Disrupted dispersal and social and ecological interactions, due to reduced size and increased isolation of remnants;  Loss of habitat mosaics which reduces ability of species to obtain their requirements in a wide range of conditions (e.g. spatially and temporally variable food resources, drought and fire refugia);  Adverse effects of increased habitat edges (e.g. altered microclimate, vegetation structure, food availability, increased predation for fauna);  Increase in pest incursions (weeds, predators, competitive species), resulting in further species loss and habitat degradation.5 The settlement and modification of the AMLR has also altered large-scale natural processes, including hydrological regimes and changes to the severity and extent of wildfire, affecting the condition of native vegetation in the region.13 Strategic, landscape-scale, and long-term habitat re-establishment programs will be required to curb further loss of species suffering the effects of ecological stresses (see Section 7).

20 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

4. Planning Approaches and Methods As there are very few precedents for this style of threatened species recovery planning, a custom planning and analysis model was developed to prepare the plan. Primarily a species-based approach was used to complement existing broader ecosystem scale planning processes. The following sections summarise the methodology adopted. More details are provided in Appendices Part A.

4.1 Data Management & Species Inclusion Processes A project database was devised, based on a data extract of all species records for the region from the DEH Biological Databases of South Australia (July 2007), updated with additional species data sourced from various other databases. Considerable work was undertaken validating and editing data (however, there remain major database reliability issues for threatened species – expanded on in Section 6). Filters were applied to the data to extract all ‘included’ species from the database using date, observer and spatial precision filter rules. The project database provided the foundation for the species selection and accompanying Geographic Information System (GIS) and associated analysis. Other databases and mapping tools were accessed to assess and describe inter-regional species distributions. Species were chosen for inclusion in the plan using a systematic selection process, though due to data deficiency issues qualitative assessments were required from several regional experts to confirm presence, distributions or conservation status for several species. For flora species in particular, the process is also compromised by taxonomic uncertainty, which leads to difficulty in assessing distribution and regional conservation status. Numerous species were excluded on this basis (e.g. Cardamine spp. and many orchid species). In some cases species had to be excluded because data was not available (e.g. Pterostylis sp. Rock ledges), and time constraints precluded attaining comprehensive information for so many species. Implementation of this plan will involve ongoing reviewing of the inclusion process to account for taxonomic revisions, improved data and increased knowledge. Whilst the process differed slightly for each taxonomic group, the principal criterion for inclusion was the species’ regional conservation status rating, adapted from existing rating systems with expert input. This meant that selected species were not limited to those with broader State or National legislative conservation ratings, but also included other species of regional concern. The ‘custom’ AMLR regional conservation rating was devised only for the purposes of this plan. All known extant terrestrial vascular flora and vertebrate fauna (birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, freshwater fish) species with a high regional conservation status were considered for inclusion. Species were categorised into endemism classes (AMLR endemic, State endemic, non-endemic). State and non-endemics were further classified relative to their broader State distribution (e.g. disjunct, limited, widespread, peripheral). For flora species, preference was given to AMLR endemics and State endemics with significant AMLR population presence. Non-endemics were included if their regional conservation status was high and the AMLR population was considered significant but disjunct from other regional populations (Appendices Part A). As a general rule, all EPBC Act listed species and all NPW Act ‘Endangered’ species present in the AMLR region were included, unless the AMLR populations were very peripheral to their main distribution, or their presence could not be confirmed (that is, unreliable records or considered extinct or functionally extinct). For freshwater fish, exotic and translocated species were excluded. Two EPBC listed species were included although their AMLR distributions are peripheral to the majority of their distribution. For bird species, results from previous regional-specific project work5 were used to complement existing regional threat ratings. In some cases expert opinion was used to adjust conservation ratings and decide on inclusion. Migratory non-breeders, vagrant and nomadic species that did not meet certain regional conservation rating and declining criteria were excluded. Further details are outlined in Appendices Part A.

4.2 Species & Sub-regional Prioritisation Regional Vulnerability Groups Internationally, there is not one accepted method for species prioritisation. Methodology is dependent on many variables including project goals and scale. A custom system was devised, combining a categorical approach and numerical scoring using criteria appropriate to the level and quality of information available.

21 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

This process aimed to determine species’ vulnerability to decline and to assist in determining threat abatement priority within the AMLR region. Rather than relying solely on legislative conservation status ratings to determine priority (which may not reflect the regional situation), the approach aimed to ‘value-add’ to existing ratings by capturing regional importance. All terrestrial species were prioritised into six flora and fauna ‘Regional Vulnerability Groups’ (RVGs) (decreasing in priority from one to six), according to the following categories:  Regional conservation status (AMLR region)  Relative area of occupancy (AMLR region)  Endemism & distribution (State)  Habitat specialisation (flora)  State (NPW Act) & National (EPBC Act) conservation status, and  Residency - AMLR (fauna). Vulnerability Group 1 for flora and fauna was further refined into sub-priorities. The categories were equally weighted and were point-scored against assessable criteria (described in Appendices Part A). A sensitivity analysis using a selection of well-known ‘benchmark’ species was conducted to determine the relative influence of each category. Results were also assessed by expert opinion. It is recognised that there are interrelationships in the categories and criteria used for this assessment. The results should be considered preliminary for many reasons, including data constraints to assess distribution characteristics, limited information to assess habitat specialisation and limits to the use of legislative threatened species ratings. It is envisaged that the system should be reviewed as actions proposed in this plan are funded and implemented.

Sub-regional landscape species prioritisation The aim in this process was to spatially characterise species’ distribution in relation to regional priority, to assist in targeting management. The AMLR region was stratified into eleven sub-regional ‘landscapes’ (SRL), defined by biogeographic characteristics including soils and geological landform mapping and pre-European vegetation patterns (Figure 2). The SRLs represent relatively distinct ecological units of the AMLR which were defined by the Draft AMLR Biodiversity Strategy. For each species, the proportion of its distribution occurring in each SRL was calculated. Treated species presence data (500 metre grid cell presence from the filtered database extract) was used as a surrogate for population distribution. To determine the SRL population distribution proportion for each species, the number of occupied grid cells within each SRL was compared to the total number of grid cells the species occupied in the region. The SRL population distribution proportion was calculated as a percentage, and then classified into descriptive classes (All: 100 per cent; High: 50-100 per cent; Moderate: 20-50 per cent; Low: 10-20 per cent; Very Low: 1-10 per cent). The SRL population distribution proportion results were combined with the Regional Vulnerability Group results using a matrix to produce a final species SRL priority rating (Table 6).

Table 6. Look-up matrix to determine Sub-regional Landscape species priority Regional Vulnerability Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 ALL VH VH VH H H H HIGH VH VH H H H M MEDIUM VH H H H M M LOW H H H M M M SRL population proportion VERY LOW H H M M M M

Note: VH= Very High; H=High; M=Medium

22 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

It is important to understand the ‘ecological triage’ (priority-setting) type principles adopted in this planning It is important to understand the ‘ecological triage’ (priority-setting) type principles adopted in this planning approach. The Regional Vulnerability Group analysis places priority on more vulnerable species through approach. The Regional Vulnerability Group analysis places priority on more vulnerable species through assessing a selected range of ecological risk factors. At this level, the approach does not make assumptions assessing a selected range of ecological risk factors. At this level, the approach does not make assumptions about the potential success or the cost of recovery for each species. However, the initial species selection about the potential success or the cost of recovery for each species. However, the initial species selection process effectively does, by excluding species considered extinct or ‘functionally extinct’, though they may process effectively does, by excluding species considered extinct or ‘functionally extinct’, though they may not be officially listed as extinct on any legislative schedules (indeed may still be listed as extant). For birds, not be officially listed as extinct on any legislative schedules (indeed may still be listed as extant). For birds, this inclusion process places priority on residents, effectively stating there is less regional management control this inclusion process places priority on residents, effectively stating there is less regional management control over migrants or vagrants and scarce resources should initially be devoted to ‘full-time’ residents (at least over migrants or vagrants and scarce resources should initially be devoted to ‘full-time’ residents (at least within the five year timeframe of this plan). within the five year timeframe of this plan). The SRL prioritisation process for species also implies considering potential success of recovery, in regards to The SRL prioritisation process for species also implies considering potential success of recovery, in regards to conservation priority-setting. The process effectively uses the SRLs as management units to set spatial conservation priority-setting. The process effectively uses the SRLs as management units to set spatial priorities, and presumes that recovery actions should be directed towards more regionally vulnerable species priorities, and presumes that recovery actions should be directed towards more regionally vulnerable species where their extant distributions (as best currently known) are more concentrated. However, all sub- where their extant distributions (as best currently known) are more concentrated. However, all sub- populations of the most vulnerable species are high priority wherever they occur. populations of the most vulnerable species are high priority wherever they occur. Due to challenges in determining extant area of occupancy for species currently declining but still relatively Due to challenges in determining extant area of occupancy for species currently declining but still relatively extensive compared to many other species (as is the case for many declining bird species) this approach will extensive compared to many other species (as is the case for many declining bird species) this approach will require continued refining. Implementation of this plan will require further finer-scale triage-type planning, require continued refining. Implementation of this plan will require further finer-scale triage-type planning, particularly as knowledge concerning species’ extant distribution and sub-population status is improved and particularly as knowledge concerning species’ extant distribution and sub-population status is improved and other impediments to recovery particularly relating to knowledge-base systems are addressed (see Section other impediments to recovery particularly relating to knowledge-base systems are addressed (see Section 6). A similar process will be required for threatened ecological vegetation communities. While they have 6). A similar process will be required for threatened ecological vegetation communities. While they have been identified and prioritisation undertaken in this plan, more detailed sub-regional prioritisation could not been identified and prioritisation undertaken in this plan, more detailed sub-regional prioritisation could not be completed due to the inadequate level of knowledge concerning extant distributions. be completed due to the inadequate level of knowledge concerning extant distributions.

Figure 2. Sub-regional Landscapes of the AMLR Figure 2. Sub-regional Landscapes of the AMLR

23 23 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

4.3 Ecological Communities 4.3 Ecological Communities This plan represents primarily a species-based approach to regional recovery planning, designed to This plan represents primarily a species-based approach to regional recovery planning, designed to complement existing regional conservation planning processes. Ecological community recovery complement existing regional conservation planning processes. Ecological community recovery management needs were addressed primarily in two ways: management needs were addressed primarily in two ways: 1. Analysing species ‘habitat’ preferences using ‘Broad Vegetation Groups’ (BVG) (consistent with the 1. Analysing species ‘habitat’ preferences using ‘Broad Vegetation Groups’ (BVG) (consistent with the Draft AMLR Biodiversity Strategy and the NRM Plan). A threat analysis was also conducted on the Draft AMLR Biodiversity Strategy and the NRM Plan). A threat analysis was also conducted on the BVGs. BVGs. Nine BVGs have been identified within the AMLR region (Table 7 and Table 8, with full description in Nine BVGs have been identified within the AMLR region (Table 7 and Table 8, with full description in Appendices Part A). These broad ecological communities have been developed taking into Appendices Part A). These broad ecological communities have been developed taking into consideration a range of biotic and abiotic parameters, such as climate, underlying geology, consideration a range of biotic and abiotic parameters, such as climate, underlying geology, geomorphology, soils and the structure of the vegetation itself. Within each BVG, more specific geomorphology, soils and the structure of the vegetation itself. Within each BVG, more specific vegetation associations are linked and were used to help determine the species’ three BVG vegetation associations are linked and were used to help determine the species’ three BVG associations, in preferential order. Available literature and expert opinion was used to identify the associations, in preferential order. Available literature and expert opinion was used to identify the three preferred species’ BVG as a broad habitat descriptor. three preferred species’ BVG as a broad habitat descriptor. 2. Identification and prioritisation of specific threatened ecological communities. This process used a 2. Identification and prioritisation of specific threatened ecological communities. This process used a State level classification of threatened ecological communities in combination with mapped State level classification of threatened ecological communities in combination with mapped distributions to identify and prioritise 18 communities where the AMLR distribution is significant and distributions to identify and prioritise 18 communities where the AMLR distribution is significant and under threat. Expert opinion was used to refine the prioritisation process. The results should be under threat. Expert opinion was used to refine the prioritisation process. The results should be considered interim due to lack of knowledge concerning extant distribution and status, and the considered interim due to lack of knowledge concerning extant distribution and status, and the limitations in existing mapping data preventing more detailed analysis. The detailed assessment limitations in existing mapping data preventing more detailed analysis. The detailed assessment table and methodology is presented in Appendices Part A. table and methodology is presented in Appendices Part A.

Table 7. Summary of sub-regional landscapes of the AMLR Table 7. Summary of sub-regional landscapes of the AMLR SR Landscape Landscape modification Dominant Major land use SR Landscape Landscape modification Dominant Major land use BVG* BVG* Northern Lofty Fragmented-Variegated HW, RI, GW Grazing Northern Lofty Fragmented-Variegated HW, RI, GW Grazing >30% vegetation Conservation >30% vegetation Conservation Forestry Forestry Central Lofty Ranges Fragmented HF, RI Peri-urban Central Lofty Ranges Fragmented HF, RI Peri-urban 10-30% vegetation 10-30% vegetation Foothills/ Hills Face Fragmented GW, RI Peri-urban Foothills/ Hills Face Fragmented GW, RI Peri-urban 10-30% vegetation 10-30% vegetation Southern Fleurieu Fragmented HF, HW, WE Improved pastures Southern Fleurieu Fragmented HF, HW, WE Improved pastures 10-30% vegetation Conservation 10-30% vegetation Conservation Fleurieu Fragmented HW Dairies Fleurieu Fragmented HW Dairies 10-30% vegetation Grazing 10-30% vegetation Grazing Eastern Plains Presumed Fragmented GW Grazing Eastern Plains Presumed Fragmented GW Grazing >10% vegetation Cropping >10% vegetation Cropping Barossa and Eastern Presumed Fragmented GW, GR Grazing Barossa and Eastern Presumed Fragmented GW, GR Grazing Hills >10% vegetation Viticulture Hills >10% vegetation Viticulture Northern Adelaide/ Fragmented Coastal CO Urban Northern Adelaide/ Fragmented Coastal CO Urban Southern Coastline <30% vegetation Horticulture/cropping Southern Coastline <30% vegetation Horticulture/cropping Adelaide Plains/ Relictual GW, HW Urban Adelaide Plains/ Relictual GW, HW Urban Willunga Basin <10% vegetation Horticulture/cropping Willunga Basin <10% vegetation Horticulture/cropping Source: Draft Biodiversity Strategy for Adelaide and the Mount Lofty Ranges. Source: Draft Biodiversity Strategy for Adelaide and the Mount Lofty Ranges. Notes: *Broad Vegetation Group: GR = Grassland; GW = Grassy Woodland; HF = Heathy Open Forest; HW = Heathy Woodland; Notes: *Broad Vegetation Group: GR = Grassland; GW = Grassy Woodland; HF = Heathy Open Forest; HW = Heathy Woodland; CO = Coastal; WE = Wetland; MA = Mallee; RI = Riparian; SH = Shrubland CO = Coastal; WE = Wetland; MA = Mallee; RI = Riparian; SH = Shrubland

24 24 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

Table 8. Descriptions of Broad Vegetation Groups BVG Description Area and distribution* Grassland A native grassland is dominated by native grasses and 5%. Located on plains either herbs, with few or no trees. All grasslands in the AMLR side of the spine of the AMLR. are tussock grasslands, having discrete clumps or tussocks of grasses, herbs or sedges. Grassy Grassy woodlands are woodlands with an understorey 37%. Widespread. Wide arc Woodland dominated by grasses, herbaceous species (e.g. either side of spine of AMLR, daisies, lilies) and sedges, a scattered shrub layer and a and on good soils in ranges. discontinuous tree layer. The over-storey is typically dominated by eucalypts. Heathy Similar to heathy open forest, heathy woodland has a 15%. Widespread. Spine of Woodland dense understorey and mid-storey of a variety of low AMLR, Fleurieu Peninsula small-leaved (sclerophyllous) shrubs. These layers have high structural diversity, but contain fewer species than grassy woodlands. Heathy Open Heathy open forest has a canopy dominated by 7%. High-rainfall areas, Forest eucalypts, and a dense understorey comprising many central spine of AMLR species of low shrubs, generally with small sclerophyllous hard leaves. Shrubland Shrubland is vegetation with an open to very dense 2%. Restricted. Northern layer of shrubs up to 2 m in height, with few or no trees. Adelaide Coastline, Northern Shrubland types in the AMLR include coastal Adelaide Plains, Fleurieu chenopod shrublands, low-rainfall open plains Peninsula. shrublands, and high-rainfall sclerophyllous shrublands. Mallee Mallee is a term used to describe vegetation with low, 2%. Peripheral. Northern and characteristically multi-stemmed trees. Mallee may eastern boundaries of region. have a grassy or shrubby understorey, or a mixture of Some coastal. both. The type of understorey is dependent upon soil and rainfall patterns. Riparian Riparian vegetation is vegetation found along 15%. Widespread. Restricted watercourses and on flood plains. Riparian zones to riparian zones. represent transition areas between land and water. The natural vegetation of these areas usually reflects the better soils and moist conditions found in the lower parts of the landscape. Wetland A number of wetland types are found in the AMLR, 2%. Restricted. Primarily including freshwater wetlands especially in the lower Fleurieu Peninsula and Fleurieu Peninsula, and seasonal wetlands of the Adelaide Plains. Adelaide Plains. Freshwater wetland vegetation in the AMLR is shrub-dominated and typically very dense. Note that estuarine creeks particularly of the south coast are considered under ‘Coastal’; red gum wetlands along creeks featuring waterholes with fringing reeds are considered under ‘Riparian’. Coastal Coastal vegetation is vegetation that is subject to the <4%. Restricted. Narrow influences of coastal environments. coastal margin. Source: Adapted from the Draft AMLR Biodiversity Strategy.

* Area as a percentage of total remnant vegetation. Note, this figure should be treated with care. Mapping of grassy ecosystems is particularly problematic.

25 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

4.4 Threat Analysis By virtue of their predicament, threatened species are more vulnerable to the numerous threats that are currently operating in or have the potential to impact in the region. A threat analysis was performed on each species and each BVG with expert input to: identify the threats currently impacting or likely to have an impact on the species in the plan within the next five years; determine a regional rating for each threat impacting on each species; and assess overall regional threat priorities across all species. Further details on the threat analysis are presented in the Appendices Part A. The threat analysis method followed the approach of The Nature Conservancy and Salafsky et al. (2003)7,32 and was mostly performed within the Conservation Action Planning (CAP) Tool, developed by The Nature Conservancy. The first step was to categorise and define ‘current direct threats’, as opposed to ‘ecological stresses’, to facilitate developing relevant management actions. The second step was to rate the Severity and Scope of each threat for each species, based on the defined criteria. These ratings were combined to obtain an overall threat Magnitude rating of Low, Medium, High or Very High. The threat categories adopted were consistent with the CAP hierarchical threat categories and IUCN- CMP Unified Classification of Direct Threats.7,26 A regionally-relevant description of each assessed threat is presented above (Section 3.3). Summarising threats across species and BVGs was performed outside of the CAP Tool, by allocating scores to the threat magnitude ratings (weighted according to the rating), summing the scores for each threat, and ranking the threats relative to the maximum threat score. This was performed separately within flora, fauna, freshwater fish groups and BVGs. Many threats are closely inter-related and therefore difficult to assess as discrete issues for each species or BVG. There is also inadequate knowledge of the threats and the potential interactions between them. Further effort is required to establish a more clear understanding of the nature, extent and relative importance of threats at the species level. This will increase our capacity to effectively manage in an integrated manner with respect to both multiple species and multiple threats. Threats with particular knowledge gaps or threats that are very interactive with other threats have been flagged in the analysis summary tables. Even using defined criteria, ranking threats across multiple species is extremely difficult. Many species are clearly suffering prolonged ecological stress associated with past threats (e.g. fragmentation and reduced population size resulting from historical broad-scale vegetation clearance). In accordance with this, ‘vegetation clearance’ was not assessed as a ‘current direct threat’. Rather it was attempted to rigorously define and assess current direct threats and link these to ecological stresses to better understand how threats operate and thus contribute to more informed management. Direct threat-ecological stress linkages are detailed in Appendices Part A. As described above, the threat analysis does not necessarily highlight or attempt to describe linkages in detail between direct threats and the underlying ‘drivers’ of indirect threats, e.g., population growth linkages to water management and use. As described in Section 3.3, ex-situ conservation is often warranted for critically threatened species particularly where the threats are largely unknown and/or uncontrollable, and is therefore an important part of recovery management. Though the threat analysis methodology could not address species’ ex- situ conservation needs specifically, relevant management actions have been incorporated in this plan. The threat assessment has been performed at the regional scale only. At present there is incomplete information on the spatial distribution of the majority of threats in the AMLR to enable a finer-scale analysis (the exception being the threat class Residential Development as described in Section 3.3.9).

4.4.1 Key threatening processes Under the EPBC Act a threatening process is defined as a Key Threatening Process (KTP) if it threatens or may threaten the survival, abundance or evolutionary development of a native species or ecological community. A process can be listed as a KTP if it could:  Cause a native species or ecological community to become eligible for inclusion in a threatened list (other than the conservation dependent category)  Cause an already listed threatened species or threatened ecological community to become endangered, or  Adversely affect two or more listed threatened species or threatened ecological communities.

26 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

There are 17 KTPs listed under the EPBC Act, nine of which are considered relevant to the AMLR Region (excluding marine):  Competition and land degradation by feral goats*  Competition and land degradation by feral rabbits*  Dieback caused by the root-rot fungus (Phytophthora cinnamomi)*  Infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in chytridomycosis*  Land clearance  Loss of climatic habitat caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases  Predation by feral cats*  Predation by the European red fox*, and  Psittacine Circoviral (beak and feather) Disease affecting endangered psittacine species*. KTPs marked with an asterisk have an approved or draft National Threat Abatement Plan (TAP). Other currently listed KTPs could be relevant to the AMLR in the future (e.g. reduction in the biodiversity of Australian native fauna and flora due to the cane toad and red imported fire ant). Once a threatening process is listed under the EPBC Act, a TAP can be put into place if it is shown to be ‘a feasible, effective and efficient way’ to abate the threatening process.

4.5 Community Engagement 4.5.1 Targeted engagement A project-specific community engagement strategy was prepared in April 2007, identifying key stakeholders, consultation objectives and milestones for the project. Over 100 key stakeholders (government and non-government) were identified in the strategy, including relevant persons from surrounding regions. A list of the agencies and individuals consulted during this project is provided in Appendices Part A. Targeted consultation occurred throughout the development of this plan and workshops were held with experts to obtain input regarding: the prioritisation criteria, species’ inclusion, data vetting, species’ distribution and ecology, and analysis of threats. Prior to public exhibition of this plan, a one month preliminary comment period was undertaken targeting key State government and non-government stakeholders.

4.5.2 General community A project website was established in May 2007, providing a platform for information dissemination. The project (and website) was concurrently promoted in existing conservation oriented newsletters (see Appendices Part A). Stakeholders were provided the opportunity to be included on the project’s e-mail distribution list to receive project updates. Further community input was sought during the statutory public exhibition phase. The draft plan was released for a formal three month comment period in late 2008.

4.5.3 Aboriginal community engagement There are five Aboriginal Nations with interests in the planning area: Kaurna, Peramangk, Ngarrindjeri, Ngadjuri and Nganguraku. After initial contact with the individual nations, the Four Nations NRM Governance Group (FNGG) was consulted to provide input into the plan. The FNGG consists of representatives from Kaurna, Ngadjuri, Ngarrindjeri and the Peramangk Nations. A member on the FNGG also represents the Nganguraku Nation.

4.6 Benefits to Other Species/Ecological Communities Many threat abatement actions may benefit other flora and fauna sharing a common distribution with the species included within this plan. Similarly, benefits to numerous species as a response to this plan will positively impact upon the vegetation communities in which the target species occur. Broader scale habitat restoration actions will also have benefits far beyond the focus of this plan. Focused research will

27 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014 improve species’ based knowledge, to the benefit of their future management, and may also have application in the management of closely related species. However, different species have different management requirements, therefore multi-benefits cannot automatically be assumed by species-specific or habitat-scale management. In some instances actions to manage one species can have a negative impact on others. For example, fencing pockets of native vegetation may protect the structural integrity of native vegetation, however, in the absence of appropriate disturbance regimes, the habitat conditions may become altered, and may not be suitable for some species (e.g. overgrowth of shrubs, shading out ground-level species). It is also recognised that species composition may change over time in response to successional changes in habitat, that may occur naturally or as a result of a particular management regime. Hence, on-ground action needs careful consideration and should be undertaken with best knowledge of the complement of species occurring in an area. Some of the species in the plan are regarded as ‘flagship species’, i.e. species with a public profile that may help to raise public awareness or financial support for conservation action.27 In the AMLR, the southern brown bandicoot and southern emu-wren are two examples. However, as indicated above, flagship species should not be presumed to be de facto ‘umbrella’ species.

5. Summary of Analyses

5.1 Threatened Species Regional Vulnerability Groups Six groups representing regional vulnerability to decline were developed separately for flora and fauna species included in this plan. Table 15 and Table 16 present the species’ Vulnerability Group membership, Sub-regional priority, preferred BVG, level of knowledge and regional threat ratings. Group 1 represents higher priority species while Group 6 represents relatively lower priority species (note that this is in the context of all of these species being identified as regional recovery priorities). Due to uncertainty in the data and available information as described in Section 6, group membership should not be considered completely discrete or absolute. For example, in reality there may be insignificant differences between species vulnerability in adjacent groups. The results from this assessment are combined with a variety of other analyses and presented in the following sections. Threatened flora species presence by Sub-regional Landscape The Fleurieu Sub-regional Landscape is very species-rich (in terms of the threatened flora species included in this plan), having over half (54 per cent) of the flora species present (Table 9). The majority of these species are ‘Wetland’ species. Importantly, the Fleurieu SRL also has by far the highest number of SRL endemics. Some SRLs are relatively small but have comparatively high species occurrence, including Southern Coastline, Foothills/Hills Face and Central Lofty Ranges. The Southern Coastline also has relatively high SRL endemism.

Table 9. Flora species Sub-regional Landscape presence Sub-regional Landscape % area # spp. % spp. SRL Species preferred AMLR endemic BVG* Fleurieu 13% 70 54% 22 WE, HW Central Lofty Ranges 9% 47 37% 4 WE, HW, GW Foothills/ Hills Face 3% 38 29% 5 HW, GW, WE Barossa and Eastern Hills 22% 33 25% 1 WE, GW Southern Fleurieu 4% 30 23% 2 WE Northern Lofty Ranges 4% 27 21% 2 HW, GW Southern Coastline 1% 18 14% 7 CO Willunga Basin 7% 17 13% 1 GW Eastern Plains 14% 15 12% 5 MA Adelaide Plains 20% 10 8% 0 GW Northern Adelaide Coastline 3% 2 2% 2 CO, GW *Most frequent species count by preferred Broad Vegetation Group: GW = Grassy Woodland; HF = Heathy Forest; HW = Heathy Woodland; CO = Coastal; WE = Wetland; MA = Mallee; RI = Riparian; SH = Shrubland.

28 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

Threatened fauna species presence by Sub-regional Landscape Compared to the flora species’ distribution, in general fauna species are more evenly spread throughout the SRLs (Table 10). There is also much less SRL endemism compared to flora species. However, some SRLs are relatively small in area but have comparatively high species occurrence, including Southern Coastline, Foothills/Hills Face, Northern Lofty Ranges.

Table 10. Fauna species Sub-regional Landscape presence (excluding fish) Sub-regional Landscape % area # spp. % spp. SRL Species preferred AMLR endemic BVG* Barossa and Eastern Hills 22% 50 78% 1 GW, HW Willunga Basin 7% 50 78% 2 GW, HW Fleurieu 13% 49 77% 0 GW, HW Southern Fleurieu 4% 49 77% 0 GW, HW Central Lofty Ranges 9% 48 75% 0 GW, HW Adelaide Plains 20% 45 70% 0 GW, HW Foothills/ Hills Face 3% 44 69% 0 GW, HW Northern Lofty Ranges 4% 44 69% 0 GW, HW Southern Coastline 1% 41 64% 0 GW, HW Eastern Plains 14% 41 64% 0 GW Northern Adelaide Coastline 3% 29 44% 0 GW *Most frequent species count by preferred Broad Vegetation Group: GW = Grassy Woodland; HF = Heathy Forest; HW = Heathy Woodland; CO = Coastal; WE = Wetland; MA = Mallee; RI = Riparian; SH = Shrubland

5.2 Ecological Communities 5.2.1 Threatened species associations with Broad Vegetation Groups Table 11 and Table 12 present the Broad Vegetation Group (BVG) preferences in combination with Regional Vulnerability Group. Salient points include:  Flora species are primarily associated with Wetland, followed by Heathy Woodland and thirdly Grassy Woodland BVGs. A high number of flora species in higher-ranking Vulnerability Groups are also ‘Wetland’ species.  The majority of fauna species are associated with Grassy Woodland or secondly the Heathy Woodland BVG.

Table 11. Summary of flora species Vulnerability Group and preferred Broad Vegetation Group Vulnerability Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total (#) Total (%) WETLAND 14 5 8 9 4 2 42 32 HEATHY WOODLAND 8 7 4 4 4 3 30 23 GRASSY WOODLAND 4 2 2 2 2 4 18 14 COASTAL 4 1 4 2 - 1 12 9 RIPARIAN 4 2 1 2 - - 9 7 MALLEE 1 1 3 2 1 1 9 7 HEATHY OPEN FOREST 3 - 1 - 2 1 7 5 SHRUBLAND 1 1 - - - 1 3 2 GRASSLAND ------

29 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

Table 12. Summary of fauna species Vulnerability Group and preferred Broad Vegetation Group Vulnerability Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total (#) Total (%) GRASSY WOODLAND 1 2 5 8 3 5 24 38 HEATHY WOODLAND 3 - 3 - 5 3 14 22 WETLAND 1 1 3 2 - - 7 11 RIPARIAN - 2 2 1 - 1 6 9 GRASSLAND - - 4 - - - 4 6 COASTAL 1 2 - - - - 3 5 SHRUBLAND - - - 1 2 - 3 5 HEATHY OPEN FOREST - - 1 - - 1 2 3 MALLEE - - - 1 - - 1 2

5.2.2 Threatened ecological communities As described, three ecological communities that occur within the AMLR region are nationally listed as critically endangered. For the Swamps of the Fleurieu Peninsula, formal recovery planning and management has been underway since 2003 (though for several years prior the Fleurieu Peninsula wetlands have been the focus of management as part of the southern emu-wren recovery program). Initial recovery planning processes have also commenced for the recently EPBC-listed peppermint box grassy woodlands and iron-grass grasslands communities. Currently a nomination for EPBC listing of grey box woodland (threatened within AMLR) is being considered. The assessment undertaken to identify and prioritise specific threatened ecological communities within AMLR highlights many priority communities that are not currently being targeted as part of any formal recovery program (Table 13). Other than EPBC-listed ecological communities, priority threatened communities in AMLR include:  Banksia marginata grassy low woodland (Very High priority)  Eucalyptus microcarpa grassy low woodland (Very High priority)  Eucalyptus dalrympleana ssp. dalrympleana open forest (Very High priority)  Themeda triandra +/- Danthonia spp. tussock grassland (Very High priority)  Callitris preissii +/- Eucalyptus leucoxylon grassy low woodland (High priority)  Gahnia filum sedgeland (High priority)  Eucalyptus ovata +/- E. viminalis ssp. cygnetensis +/- E. camaldulensis var. camaldulensis/ Low woodland (High priority), and  Eucalyptus fasciculosa +/- E. leucoxylon heathy woodland (High priority)

30 Table 13. Threat assessment of Broad Vegetation Groups with associated threatened ecological communities

Threats & rating summary* AMLR RRP Regional Recovery for Threatened Plan &Ecologic Species State threatened ecological communities (as per DEH, 2005)8 Very High High Medium priority Grassy 1 3,4,5 2,9,13,14,15 Banksia marginata Grassy Low Woodland Very High Woodland Eucalyptus microcarpa Grassy Low Woodland Very High Eucalyptus odorata +/- E. leucoxylon Grassy Low Woodland Very High Callitris preissii +/- Eucalyptus leucoxylon Grassy Low Woodland High Allocasuarina verticillata Grassy Low Woodland Medium Eucalyptus leucoxylon ssp. pruinosa +/- E. odorata Grassy Low Woodland Medium Eucalyptus porosa Woodland Concern Wetland 6 1,2,3 4,5,8,12,13,18 Freshwater wetlands e.g. Triglochin procerum Herbland Very High Leptospermum lanigerum Closed Shrubland Very High Melaleuca squamea +/- Leptospermum continentale Closed Shrubland Very High Gahnia filum Sedgeland High Riparian 1,6 2,3,19 7,8,10,12,13,14,19 Eucalyptus dalrympleana ssp. dalrympleana Open Forest Very High Eucalyptus ovata +/- E. viminalis ssp. cygnetensis +/- E. camaldulensis var. High

camaldulensis Low Woodland al Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014 Ranges Lofty Mount and Adelaide of Communities al Eucalyptus viminalis ssp. cygnetensis and/or E. viminalis ssp. viminalis Woodland Medium + Grassland 1 3,4 2,5,8,9,15 Lomandra effusa Tussock Grassland Very High Themeda triandra +/- Danthonia spp. Tussock Grassland Very High Heathy 1,5 2,3,4,6,9,12,14,16 Eucalyptus fasciculosa +/- E. leucoxylon Heathy Woodland High

Woodland Coastal 1,2 4,7,10,11 3,5,6,9,14,15,17 Shrubland 2 3,4,17 Melaleuca halmaturorum Shrubland/ Low Open Forest Concern Mallee 1,7 3,4,5,10,11, Heathy O. 1,2 3,4,5,9,12,16

Forest

1: Weed invasion 7: Grazing & disturbance by rabbits 13: Agriculture intensification 19: Removal of snags 2: Drought, climate change, severe weather 8: Incompatible site management 14: Problematic native species (other) 3: Grazing & disturbance by stock 9: Firewood & rock removal 15: Pollution & Poisoning (chemical & solid waste) 4: Inappropriate fire regimes 10: Residential & commercial development 16: Disease or insect damage (Phytophthora) 5: Grazing & disturbance by kangaroos 11: Recreational activities & site disturbance 17: Fire management activities 6: Water management & use 12: Grazing & disturbance by deer & goats 18: Predation & competition by introduced fish

*Note: excluded threats rated ‘Low’. See Appendices Part A for prioritisation methodology.

31

Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

5.3 Current Direct Threats Regional summary Threat summary ratings for the species-based analysis are listed below in Table 14. As indicated, the threat analysis results for some categories should be interpreted with care due to threat interactions and significant knowledge gaps. Other limitations are described in Appendices Part A. Threats that rank very highly across all three groups (flora, fauna and freshwater fish) include climate change (including drought & severe weather), water management and use, and grazing and disturbance by stock. Other relatively high-ranking threats across all three groups include residential and commercial development, recreational activities and incompatible site management. Weed invasion is a highly ranked threat across flora and fauna species. The species-based threat results are presented in combination with sub-regional priority and other species analysis attributes in Table 15, Table 16. The threat results are also summarised and combined with links to the management objectives and actions in sections below. Refer to the species profiles in Appendices Part B for additional species-specific threat-related information. Current direct threats were also assessed for the defined BVGs. Summaries are presented in Table 13. Weed invasion is a significant threat to grassy woodland, riparian, grassland and coastal groups. Water management and use is also a significant threat to wetland and riparian vegetation groups. Climate change, drought & severe weather is an important threat to most groups, but particularly coastal communities. Other than managing direct threats to these communities, there are a number of other crucial management needs including addressing knowledge gaps, improving knowledge- base systems and increasing legislative protection (see Section 7). Further threat analyses results including proposed priority BVG/species associations are presented in Section 5.5.

32 Table 14. Species-based threat analysis summary & management links

Current direct threat category FLORA FAUNA* FISH Actions^ Regional Recovery for Threatened Plan &Ecologic Species Agriculture & Aquaculture Grazing & Disturbance by Stock   Medium-High Very High High A1.3; A3.15 Biological Resource Use Firewood & Rock Removal - Medium-High - A1.6 Fishing & Harvesting of Aquatic Resources - - Medium-High A1.4; A1.20 Illegal Hunting or Collection Low Low Medium-High A4.2 Climate Change, Drought & Severe Weather Climate Change, Drought & Severe Weather  Very High Very High Very High A3.19 Energy Production & Mining Mining & Quarrying Low Low Medium-High A4.2 Human Intrusions & Disturbance Recreational Activities & Site Disturbance Medium-High Medium Medium-High A1.5 Invasive & Other Problematic Species & Genes Competition with Honey Bees  - Low - Disease & Insect Damage#   Low Medium Medium-High A4.2; see note # Grazing & Disturbance by Deer or Goats  Low Low - Grazing & Disturbance by Kangaroos   Medium-High Low - A1.8; A3.15 Grazing & Disturbance by Rabbits  Medium Medium-High - A1.9; A3.15 Predation & Disturbance by Uncontrolled Dogs - Medium - A1.12 Predation by Cats   - Very High - A1.12; A3.22 Predation by Foxes   - High - A1.10; A1.11; A3.16; A3.22 Predation & Competition by Introduced Birds - Low - Predation & Competition by Introduced Fish - - High A1.4; A1.20 2009-2014 Ranges Lofty Mount and Adelaide of Communities al Problematic Native Species (Other)  Low Low - Weed Invasion+  Very High High - A1.13; A1.14; A3.15 Natural Systems Modifications Fire Management Activities  Low Medium-High - A1.15 Inappropriate Fire Regimes   Medium-High Very High Low A3.17; A3.15 Incompatible Site Management  Medium-High Medium - A1.16 Removal of Snags - - Medium-High A1.4; A1.20 Water Management & Use   High High Very High A1.17-A1.19; A3.15 Pollution Pollution & Poisoning Medium Medium-High Medium-High A1.16 Residential & Commercial Development Residential & Commercial Development Medium-High High Medium-High A1.21 Transportation & Service Corridors Road, Rail & Utilities Maintenance Activities Medium Low - A1.22 Road-kill - Low -

 A threat category which is highly interactive with other threats, and therefore difficult to assess independently.

 A threat category with a high degree of assessment uncertainty due to lack of knowledge.

* Fauna summary includes bird, reptile, amphibian and mammal species. ^ Only most relevant actions indicated. See Section 7 for other related actions and performance criteria.

# Includes Phytophthora but assessed for Broad Vegetation Groups only. For species, see Actions A1.6; A1.7; A3.18.

+ See Appendices Part A for priority weed species

- Threat not relevant to the taxa group. 33

Table 15. Threatened flora species analysis summary (pages 34-37) ^ Sorted alphabetically by Regional Vulnerability Group # Level of Knowledge/management: Poor = ; Some = ; Fair =  (see Section 5.4) * The first and second preferred BVG: GW = Grassy Woodland; HF = Heathy Open Forest; HW = Heathy Woodland; CO = Coastal; WE = Wetland; MA = Mallee; RI = Riparian; SH = Shrubland; GR = Grassland. Species with an asterisk after the abbreviated BVG

have been classified as entirely confined to that BVG within the region. Regional Recovery for Threatened Plan &Ecologic Species

Sub-regional Landscape Priority Threat Summary – Regional  Very High;  High;  Medium VH Very High; H High; M Medium; L Low

# by Deer or Goats Broad Vegetation Group preference * Adelaide Plains Barossa & Eastern Hills Eastern Plains Fleurieu FaceFoothills/ Hills Central Lofty Ranges Coastline Northern Lofty Ranges Northern Southern Coastline Southern Fleurieu Willunga Basin Grazing & Disturbance by Stock Collection Illegal Hunting or Climate Change, Drought & Severe Weather Mining & Quarrying Recreational Activities & Site Disturbance Disease & Insect Damage Grazing & Disturbance by Kangaroos Grazing & Disturbance by Rabbits Grazing & Disturbance Problematic Native Species (Other) Weed Invasion Fire Management Activities Inappropriate Fire Regimes Incompatible Site Management Water Management Use & Pollution & Poisoning Residential & Commercial Development UtilitiesMaintenanceRoad, Rail & Activities Species^ Regional VulnerabilityGroup Level of Knowledge & Management

Corybas dentatus 1a  HF*   M M M M M M M L M Hibbertia tenuis 1a  WE*  L M M M al Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014 Ranges Lofty Mount and Adelaide of Communities al Prasophyllum murfetii 1a  WE*   H L M L L M M VH VH Pterostylis bryophila 1a  GW*  M H M L VH M L Thelymitra cyanapicata 1a  WE*  M M M M L M H M M Allocasuarina robusta 1b  HW/WE  M M M M H M L M M H Caladenia colorata 1b  HW*  VH L M L L M L M Caladenia gladiolata 1b  HW/GW  M H M M L M M Caladenia ovata 1b  HW/SH  H L L L H Calochilus cupreus 1b  CO*  M M H L L H L M Corybas expansus 1b  CO*  M L L M Lycopodiella serpentina 1b  WE*  M VH M H M H M Pratia puberula 1b  WE*   M M H L Prostanthera eurybioides 1b  MA/SH  M L L M M M M M H L M Psilotum nudum 1b  RI*   L L VH Pterostylis uliginosa 1b  WE*  M H H M H M Thelymitra circumsepta 1b  WE*  L M M M M M Todea barbara 1b  HF/WE   L L L H H L M M Caladenia argocalla 1c  GW*    M M L M L L Caladenia behrii 1c  HW*     L M M M M L L L L L Caladenia rigida 1c  HW*    L M M M L L L L H L Correa calycina var. calycina 1c  RI/WE  M M L M M L M M L M L L Dampiera lanceolata var. intermedia 1c  CO/HW  M M M L VH L Eleocharis atricha 1c  WE*  M M Eucalyptus paludicola 1c  HW/WE  M M L M L M M Helichrysum rutidolepis 1c  RI*     H M H Juncus prismatocarpus 1c  WE*  M L M M Lycopodium deuterodensum 1c  HF/SH  M M H L

Maireana decalvans 1c  CO*    H M H M H Mazus pumilio 1c  WE*  M L L H M H L 34

Sub-regional Landscape Priority Threat Summary – Regional  Very High;  High;  Medium VH Very High; H High; M Medium; L Low Regional Recovery for Threatened Plan &Ecologic Species

# by Deer or Goats Broad Vegetation Group preference * Adelaide Plains Barossa & Eastern Hills Eastern Plains Fleurieu FaceFoothills/ Hills Central Lofty Ranges Coastline Northern Lofty Ranges Northern Southern Coastline Southern Fleurieu Willunga Basin Grazing & Disturbance by Stock Collection Illegal Hunting or Climate Change, Drought & Severe Weather Mining & Quarrying Recreational Activities & Site Disturbance Disease & Insect Damage Grazing & Disturbance by Kangaroos Grazing & Disturbance by Rabbits Grazing & Disturbance Problematic Native Species (Other) Weed Invasion Fire Management Activities Inappropriate Fire Regimes Incompatible Site Management Water Management Use & Pollution & Poisoning Residential & Commercial Development UtilitiesMaintenanceRoad, Rail & Activities Species^ Regional VulnerabilityGroup Level of Knowledge & Management

Olearia glandulosa 1c  WE*  M M H M Prasophyllum pruinosum 1c  GW*   L M H H H VH VH H Pterostylis arenicola 1c  GW/SH  M H M L H M H H M Pterostylis falcata 1c  WE*  H L H M VH L VH L Pterostylis sp. Hale (R.Bates 21725) 1c  HW*  L Ranunculus papulentus 1c  WE*    H H Thelymitra cyanea 1c  WE*  H L H M M M H M M H L L Tricostularia pauciflora 1c  SH/WE   M M M L Wurmbea uniflora 1c  RI/GW   H L H H 2009-2014 Ranges Lofty Mount and Adelaide of Communities al Acacia pinguifolia 2  MA/SH  L L H VH L L L H Austrostipa oligostachya 2  GW/GR    M H M M Brachyscome diversifolia 2  HW/GW   M M M Calochilus paludosus 2  HW/WE  M M VH M Crassula sieberiana 2  RI/GW     H M M Veronica derwentiana ssp. anisodonta 2  HW/RI   L L L H M L M M M Veronica derwentiana ssp. homa. 2  HW/WE     M L L H M M M M Diuris brevifolia 2  HW/WE     L L H L M M H L VH L L Gahnia radula 2  RI/HW  H M Gratiola pumilo 2  WE*   H H Microtis rara 2  WE*  H H VH H VH VH Paracaleana disjuncta 2  HW*  L M M M VH Podolepis muelleri 2  CO*  H Pterostylis cucullata ssp. sylvicola 2  GW*    M H M L H VH M M L L L L Schizaea fistulosa 2  WE*    H H L Senecio megaglossus 2  SH/GR  M L L L M M Thelymitra mucida 2  WE*  H L H L M H H M H L Utricularia lateriflora 2  WE*    M H L M M Viola betonicifolia ssp. betonicifolia 2  HW/GW  M H VH H Acacia rhetinocarpa 3  MA/SH   M L H H M L Adiantum capillus-veneris 3  WE*    H M M VH M M Austrostipa echinata 3  CO*  H Caladenia bicalliata ssp. bicalliata 3  CO*  H M H L M Caladenia vulgaris 3  HW*   L H M M H H M L Corybas unguiculatus 3  HF*    L H H H H M L L Cryptostylis subulata 3  WE*   M H L L H H L H L L L

Daviesia pectinata 3  MA/CO   M M M 35

Sub-regional Landscape Priority Threat Summary – Regional  Very High;  High;  Medium VH Very High; H High; M Medium; L Low Regional Recovery for Threatened Plan &Ecologic Species

# by Deer or Goats Broad Vegetation Group preference * Adelaide Plains Barossa & Eastern Hills Eastern Plains Fleurieu FaceFoothills/ Hills Central Lofty Ranges Coastline Northern Lofty Ranges Northern Southern Coastline Southern Fleurieu Willunga Basin Grazing & Disturbance by Stock Collection Illegal Hunting or Climate Change, Drought & Severe Weather Mining & Quarrying Recreational Activities & Site Disturbance Disease & Insect Damage Grazing & Disturbance by Kangaroos Grazing & Disturbance by Rabbits Grazing & Disturbance Problematic Native Species (Other) Weed Invasion Fire Management Activities Inappropriate Fire Regimes Incompatible Site Management Water Management Use & Pollution & Poisoning Residential & Commercial Development UtilitiesMaintenanceRoad, Rail & Activities Species^ Regional VulnerabilityGroup Level of Knowledge & Management

Euphrasia collina ssp. osbornii 3  HW/CO         M H L M M H M M L M Glycine tabacina 3  RI/GW  M M M Haloragis myriocarpa 3  HW/SH  M H M Lycopodiella lateralis 3  WE*  H H H H Microtis atrata 3  WE*     M H M M H H Oreomyrrhis eriopoda 3  GW/RI   L M M M L Orobanche cernua var. australiana 3  CO*  H H Paracaleana minor 3  HW*  M M M M M L H L M H Prasophyllum fecundum 3  MA*  L H L H H H L 2009-2014 Ranges Lofty Mount and Adelaide of Communities al Prasophyllum occultans 3  GW/HW    H M H H H L M Ranunculus inundatus 3  WE*    H H H H Schizaea bifida 3  WE/HW  L VH H M L Schoenus discifer 3  WE*    M H M H M M M Spiranthes australis 3  WE*   H H M M M H L H L Spyridium coactilifolium 3  CO/HW    L H H M M L M L M Acacia menzelii 4  MA/GW  M M H M Amphibromus pithogastrus 4  RI/GW   H H Caladenia valida 4  HW/HF   L M H L M H L L L Caleana major 4  HW*    M L H M H M M L L L Calochilus campestris 4  WE/MA  M M M M Centrolepis glabra 4  WE*    H H M Correa eburnea 4  RI/HW     M M M M L Cullen parvum 4  GW/GR     L H M M H L L H L Eucalyptus phenax ssp. compressa 4  MA*   M L M M Haloragis brownii 4  WE/RI     H H H M Juncus radula 4  GW/RI   H H H Lagenophora gracilis 4  WE/GW    M M H L Leionema hillebrandii 4  HW/RI    VH L L L H H M Logania minor 4  CO*   M M VH Luzula flaccida 4  GW/RI     H L L Montia fontana ssp. chondrosperma 4  WE/HW      M M L L M M M M Neopaxia australasica 4  WE*   H H M Potamogeton ochreatus 4  WE*      H H L Prasophyllum pallidum 4  GW/HW      M L H M L M H M L L Pultenaea dentata 4  WE*  M H M H M M M

Schoenus latelaminatus 4  WE/RI        M H H H 36

Sub-regional Landscape Priority Threat Summary – Regional  Very High;  High;  Medium VH Very High; H High; M Medium; L Low Regional Recovery for Threatened Plan &Ecologic Species

# by Deer or Goats Broad Vegetation Group preference * Adelaide Plains Barossa & Eastern Hills Eastern Plains Fleurieu FaceFoothills/ Hills Central Lofty Ranges Coastline Northern Lofty Ranges Northern Southern Coastline Southern Fleurieu Willunga Basin Grazing & Disturbance by Stock Collection Illegal Hunting or Climate Change, Drought & Severe Weather Mining & Quarrying Recreational Activities & Site Disturbance Disease & Insect Damage Grazing & Disturbance by Kangaroos Grazing & Disturbance by Rabbits Grazing & Disturbance Problematic Native Species (Other) Weed Invasion Fire Management Activities Inappropriate Fire Regimes Incompatible Site Management Water Management Use & Pollution & Poisoning Residential & Commercial Development UtilitiesMaintenanceRoad, Rail & Activities Species^ Regional VulnerabilityGroup Level of Knowledge & Management

Tecticornia flabelliformis 4  CO*  M VH M H M M H M Thelymitra inflata 4  HW/RI   L H L M M M H L M Asterolasia muricata 5  HW/SH   M L L Boronia parviflora 5  WE*    M L M M M H Dipodium pardalinum 5  HF/HW   L H L H L H M M Gastrodia sesamoides 5  HF/RI     L H L H M H M Hydrocotyle crassiuscula 5  GW*  M M Juncus amabilis 5  HW/WE     M H M M M M L Olearia pannosa ssp. pannosa 5  MA/SH        M L H M M M L H 2009-2014 Ranges Lofty Mount and Adelaide of Communities al Prasophyllum fitzgeraldii 5  GW/MA    H L L L M M L Pteris tremula 5  WE/RI  M H H H M L M Thelymitra holmesii 5  WE*   M H L H M H M M M H L Thelymitra peniculata 5  HW/WE  M M M Trymalium wayi 5  HW/SH    M Xyris operculata 5  WE*   H M H Acacia gunnii 6  HW/HF   M M L H L M Callistemon teretifolius 6  HW/GW    M M Dianella longifolia var. grandis 6  GW/GR        M M L H M L Diuris behrii 6  GW/GR      M L M L M M M M Eremophila gibbifolia 6  MA*   H L M M M Eucalyptus cneorifolia 6  HW/MA    M M M Glycine latrobeana 6  GW/GR        M L H H L L Melaleuca squamea 6  WE*   H H Phyllanthus striaticaulis 6  CO/HW       M L L M Prasophyllum australe 6  WE*   M H L M M H M M Prostanthera chlorantha 6  SH/MA        M L M M L M Pterostylis curta 6  GW/RI       L L H H H H H L Pultenaea viscidula 6  HF/HW 

37

Table 16. Threatened fauna species analysis summary (pages 38 - 39 ) ^ Sorted alphabetically by Regional Vulnerability Group # Level of Knowledge/management: Poor = ; Some = ; Fair =  (see Section 5.4) * The first and second preferred BVG: GW = Grassy Woodland; HF = Heathy Open Forest; HW = Heathy Woodland; CO = Coastal; WE = Wetland; MA = Mallee; RI = Riparian; SH = Shrubland; GR = Grassland. Species with an asterisk after the abbreviated BVG have been classified as entirely confined to that BVG within the region. Regional Recovery for Threatened Plan &Ecologic Species 1 MLR subspecies 2 Chestnut-rumped Heath-wren (MLR subspecies) 3 St. Vincent Gulf subspecies

Sub-regional Landscape Priority Threat Summary – Regional  Very High;  High;  Medium VH Very High; H High; M Medium; L Low

# by Deer or Goats Broad Vegetation Group preference * Adelaide Plains Barossa & Eastern Hills Eastern Plains Fleurieu FaceFoothills/ Hills Central Lofty Ranges Coastline Northern Lofty Ranges Northern Southern Coastline Southern Fleurieu Willunga Basin Grazing & Disturbance by Stock Firewood Removal & Rock Removal Collection Illegal Hunting or Climate Change, Drought & Severe Weather Mining & Quarrying Recreational Activities & Site Disturbance Competition with Honey bees Disease & Insect Damage Grazing & Disturbance by Kangaroos Grazing & Disturbance by Rabbits Grazing & Disturbance by Uncontrolled & Disturbance DogsPredation Predation by European Fox Predation by Feral & Uncontrolled Cats Predation & Competition by Introduced Birds Problematic Native Species (Other) Weed Invasion Fire Management Activities Inappropriate Fire Regimes Incompatible Site Management Water Management Use & Pollution & Poisoning Residential & Commercial Development UtilitiesMaintenanceRoad, Rail & Activities Road-kill Species^ Class Regional VulnerabilityGroup Level of Knowledge & Management

Southern Emu-wren 1 AVES 1a  WE/HW     H H L M H M M H L VH L 2009-2014 Ranges Lofty Mount and Adelaide of Communities al Spotted Quail-thrush AVES 1a  GW/HW  L L M L L L L L H H L L M Chestnut-rumped HW 2 AVES 1b  HW/SH        L L L L L L M L L H Heath Goanna REPTILIA 1c  HW*     L L M H H M L M L Slender-billed Thornbill 3 AVES 1c  CO*   L L L L L L M M Southern Brown Bandicoot MAMMALIA 1c  HW*       M L M L M M L M M L L Beautiful Firetail AVES 2  CO/HW      M L M L L M L L L H Black-chinned Honeyeater AVES 2  GW/HW          M M L L M M L Carpet Python REPTILIA 2  RI*  L L M H H L M M L Cunningham's Skink REPTILIA 2  GW/CO      L L H L L L M L Lewin's Rail AVES 2  WE*        H H L M M M L L VH L L Orange-bellied Parrot AVES 2  CO*   L L H L L L L L L L Yellow-bellied Water Skink REPTILIA 2  RI*     H L M L L M M Australasian Bittern AVES 3  WE*       H H L L L L L L VH L L Bassian Thrush AVES 3  HW/GW        L L M L L L M L L L M L L H Brown Quail AVES 3  GR/GW        L L M L M L L L L L M L L Brown Toadlet AMPHIBIA 3  HW/WE      H L L L M L H L Buff-banded Rail AVES 3  WE*          H M L L M M M L L VH L L L Crested Shrike-tit AVES 3  GW/HW            L L M L M M L Diamond Firetail AVES 3  GW/WE        M L L L L L L M L L L H L L L Eastern Water Skink REPTILIA 3  RI*       L M L M M M Five-lined Earless Dragon REPTILIA 3  GR/GW   L L L M M Flinders Ranges Worm-lizard REPTILIA 3  GR/GW   L L L M L M Hooded Robin (South-East) AVES 3  GW/HW          L L L L L L L L L L Olive Snake-lizard REPTILIA 3  GR/GW   L L L L H H M L L L Painted Button-quail AVES 3  HW/GW          L L L M L L L L L L L L L Pygmy Copperhead REPTILIA 3  HF*     H L M M L L M M L

Restless Flycatcher AVES 3  GW/HW            M L L L L L M L L Southern Grass Skink REPTILIA 3  WE/CO   L M L M M L L M L L 38

Sub-regional Landscape Priority Threat Summary – Regional  Very High;  High;  Medium VH Very High; H High; M Medium; L Low Regional Recovery for Threatened Plan &Ecologic Species

# by Deer or Goats Broad Vegetation Group preference * Adelaide Plains Barossa & Eastern Hills Eastern Plains Fleurieu FaceFoothills/ Hills Central Lofty Ranges Coastline Northern Lofty Ranges Northern Southern Coastline Southern Fleurieu Willunga Basin Grazing & Disturbance by Stock Firewood Removal & Rock Removal Collection Illegal Hunting or Climate Change, Drought & Severe Weather Mining & Quarrying Recreational Activities & Site Disturbance Competition with Honey bees Disease & Insect Damage Grazing & Disturbance by Kangaroos Grazing & Disturbance by Rabbits Grazing & Disturbance by Uncontrolled & Disturbance DogsPredation Predation by European Fox Predation by Feral & Uncontrolled Cats Predation & Competition by Introduced Birds Problematic Native Species (Other) Weed Invasion Fire Management Activities Inappropriate Fire Regimes Incompatible Site Management Water Management & Use Pollution & Poisoning Residential & Commercial Development UtilitiesMaintenanceRoad, Rail & Activities Road-kill Species^ Class Regional VulnerabilityGroup Level of Knowledge & Management

Tiger Snake REPTILIA 3  RI/HW   L L H L M L L L L M M Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoo AVES 3  GW/HW           L L M L L L L M L M L M L L Baillon's Crake AVES 4  WE*         H H L M M M L L VH L L L Brown Treecreeper AVES 4  GW/MA          L M L L L L L L L L M Chestnut-rumped Thornbill AVES 4  GW/HW     M L L M L L L L Jacky Winter AVES 4  GW/HW          L L L L L L H Peregrine Falcon AVES 4  RI/CO            L L L M L L L Red-capped Robin AVES 4  GW/MA          L L L L L L L L L al Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014 Ranges Lofty Mount and Adelaide of Communities al Scarlet Robin AVES 4  GW/HW           L L M L L L L L L M L Southern Whiteface AVES 4  GW/HW     M M L L L L Spotless Crake AVES 4  WE*         M H L M M M L L VH L L Tawny-crowned Honeyeater AVES 4  SH/CO          L M L L L L H L Western Pygmy-possum MAMMALIA 4  MA/HW     H L L M L L L H White-winged Chough AVES 4  GW/MA        L L L L L L Zebra Finch AVES 4  GW/SH        L L L L L L L Brush Bronzewing AVES 5  HW/CO           L M L M L L M M L L H L L Little Wattlebird AVES 5  HW/SH           L M L L L M L Pallid Cuckoo AVES 5  SH/MA            L L Red-rumped Parrot AVES 5  GW/RI            L L L M L L L L L L L L L L L Tawny Frogmouth AVES 5  HW/GW         M L M L L Varied Sittella AVES 5  HW/GW           L L M L M L Whistling Kite AVES 5  GW/RI            L M L L L White-browed Babbler AVES 5  GW/HW            L L L L L L M L White-fronted Chat AVES 5  SH/WE          L L L L L L M L White-naped Honeyeater AVES 5  HW/GW            L M M L L L M M L Brown-headed Honeyeater AVES 6  HW/GW           L L L L L L L M M L Fairy Martin AVES 6  RI*           L M L L L Fan-tailed Cuckoo AVES 6  HF*            L M H Horsfield's Bronze-cuckoo AVES 6  HW/GW            L L Rufous Whistler AVES 6  GW/HW            L L L L L L Sacred Kingfisher AVES 6  GW/HW           L L L L L L L Shining Bronze-Cuckoo AVES 6  HW/GW           L M L Tree Martin AVES 6  GW/HW            L L L L L Yellow Thornbill AVES 6  GW/HW            L L L L H L Yellow-rumped Thornbill AVES 6  GW/GR            L L L L L M L

39 Table 17. Threatened freshwater fish analysis summary

Basin Presence (confirmed, post-1984 records) Threat Summary – Regional Regional Recovery for Threatened Plan &Ecologic Species  Present VH Very High; H High; M Medium; L Low

Species Family Fleurieu Peninsula River Gawler Murray River Lower Onkaparinga River Grazing & Disturbance by Stock Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources Collection Illegal Hunting or Climate Change, Drought & Severe Weather Mining & Quarrying Recreational Activities & Site Disturbance Disease & or Insect Damage Predation & Competition by Introduced Fish Inappropriate Fire Regimes Removal of Snags Water Management Use & Pollution & Poisoning (chemical & solid waste) Residential & Commercial Development

Climbing galaxias GALAXIIDAE 1 1 1 1 1 H L L VH L M L H M L VH M L Congolli BOVICHTHYIDAE 1 1 2 1 1 1 M L M VH L M L M L VH M L 1 1 2 1 1 1

Mountain galaxias GALAXIIDAE       H L L VH L M L H M L VH M L 2009-2014 Ranges Lofty Mount and Adelaide of Communities al Murray hardyhead ATHERINIDAE 2 M L L VH L M L H M L VH M L Pouched lamprey GEOTRIIDAE 2 1 M L L VH L M L M L VH M L River blackfish GADOPSIDAE 2 M L M VH M M L H M H VH M H Shortheaded lamprey MORDACIIDAE 1 M L L VH L M L M L VH M L Southern pygmy perch NANNOPERCIDAE 1 2 H L M VH L M L VH M L VH H H Yarra pygmy perch NANNOPERCIDAE 2 M L M VH L M L H L VH M L

1 South Australian Gulf Drainage Division 2 Murray-Darling Drainage Division

40 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

5.4 Species Knowledge Level Assessment ‘Knowledge level’ in this context of this plan is a general term referring to the level of regionally- relevant information known and/or available for threatened species. The findings are mostly qualitative, drawing on expert knowledge, the level of information accessible and general experience from developing this plan. Information in this section also overlaps with and links to content in Section 6 (Impediments to Recovery). General categories have been used to describe knowledge; poor, some and fair. As an indication, ‘poor’ refers to a species which has very little information available on the regional sub-population status (for one reason many historical records have never been re-visited), life history, habitat requirements, regional distribution, abundance, reasons for decline and current threats.

General knowledge level assessment Common finding across all threatened species taxa:  Institutional knowledge is very poor. Knowledge has been poorly captured and integrated in management agency documentation, databases and monitoring systems. Corporate information sources are disparate and inadequately documented.

Flora, reptiles & amphibians:  In general, knowledge is extremely limited for most species.  The most reliable and comprehensive field-based knowledge is held by a very limited number of individual experts within the AMLR region.  There is an urgent requirement to re-locate historical observations to determine population status and to improve spatial precision of the recorded locality (this includes all reptile and amphibian species and a minimum of 30 per cent of identified flora species).

Birds and mammals:  There is a greater level of knowledge in terms of species distribution, abundance and population status.  There are a greater number of experts within the region.  There are a much greater number of database species records relative to other taxa (however see Section 6 for database limitations).

Fauna species - knowledge level Knowledge level was determined through a combination of expert knowledge and information derived from previous published and unpublished project work. The majority of information about birds came from Cale (2005). See Appendices Part A for details on each species. Overall, 44 per cent of RRP fauna species have a ‘poor’ level of knowledge, 41 per cent ‘some’ and 15 per cent ‘fair’ (Table 18). Note, this analysis for fauna is based on incomplete information and should be considered preliminary. Fauna species knowledge level analysed in relation to ecological community preference, shows the dominant grassy woodland species are generally poorly known. Similarly, knowledge is lacking for the heathy woodland, riparian and grassland fauna species. Most of the threatened reptile species are particularly poorly known (especially in terms of their conservation status). A more detailed break-up of the fauna species knowledge level classification, by species priority and preferred BVG is presented below (Box 1). A knowledge level analysis could not be undertaken for freshwater fish. For detailed information on the fish species included in this plan, refer to the Action Plan for South Australian Freshwater Fishes (2007).25

41 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

Table 18. Fauna species summary management & knowledge level & BVG

# species* Poor  Some  Fair  Total (#) Total (%) GRASSY WOODLAND 10 9 5 24 38% HEATHY WOODLAND 7 6 1 14 22% WETLAND 1 5 1 7 11% RIPARIAN 5 - 1 6 9% GRASSLAND 3 1 - 4 6% COASTAL - 2 1 3 5% SHRUBLAND 1 2 - 3 5% HEATHY OPEN FOREST 1 1 - 2 3% MALLEE - - 1 1 2% Total (#) 28 26 10 64 Total (%) 44% 41% 15% * excluding freshwater fish

Box 1. Fauna species knowledge level by Vulnerability Group and Broad Vegetation Group preference (based on first BVG preference only)

Higher priority fauna species (VG 1-3) with ‘poor’ level of knowledge: GRASSLAND: Brown Quail, Five-lined Earless Dragon, Olive Snake-lizard GRASSY WOODLAND: Crested Shrike-tit, Spotted Quail-thrush HEATHY OPEN FOREST: Pygmy Copperhead HEATHY WOODLAND: Bassian Thrush, Brown Toadlet, Heath Goanna, Painted Button-quail RIPARIAN: Carpet Python, Eastern Water Skink, Tiger Snake, Yellow-bellied Water Skink WETLAND: Southern Grass Skink

Higher priority fauna species (VG 1-3) with ‘some’ level of knowledge: COASTAL: Beautiful Firetail, Slender-billed Thornbill (St Vincent Gulf) GRASSLAND: Flinders Worm Lizard GRASSY WOODLAND: Cunningham's Skink, Diamond Firetail, Hooded Robin, Restless Flycatcher Yellow- tailed Black-Cockatoo HEATHY WOODLAND: Chestnut-rumped Heathwren (MLR) WETLAND: Australasian Bittern, Buff-banded Rail, Lewin's Rail

Higher priority fauna species (VG 1-3) with ‘fair’ level of knowledge: COASTAL: Orange-bellied Parrot GRASSY WOODLAND: Black-chinned Honeyeater HEATHY WOODLAND: Southern Brown Bandicoot WETLAND: Southern Emu-wren

Lower priority fauna species (VG 4-6) with ‘fair’ level of knowledge: GRASSY WOODLAND: Brown Treecreeper, Scarlet Robin, White-browed Babbler, White-winged Chough MALLEE: Western Pygmy-possum RIPARIAN: Peregrine Falcon

42 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

Flora species - management & knowledge level As there is more species and site-specific management occurring for threatened flora species compared to fauna species, knowledge was also determined through assessing the degree of management for each species. Management was defined as regional “active management focussed on the single species or its habitat”, implying sub-population or site-specific knowledge of species status and distribution. See Appendices Part A for details on each species. Overall, 43 per cent of RRP flora species in AMLR have a ‘poor’ level of management/knowledge, 40 per cent ‘some’ and 17 per cent ‘fair’ (Table 19). Flora species management/knowledge level analysed in relation to ecological community preference, shows the dominant wetland species are particularly poorly known. The second dominant community association, heathy woodland species, have a slightly higher level of management/ knowledge. A more detailed break-up of the flora species knowledge level classification, by species priority and preferred BVG is presented below (Box 2).

Table 19. Flora species summary management & knowledge level & BVG # species Poor  Some  Fair  Total (#) Total (%) WETLAND 25 16 1 42 32 HEATHY WOODLAND 8 16 6 30 23 GRASSY WOODLAND 5 6 7 18 14 COASTAL 6 4 2 12 9 RIPARIAN 4 4 1 9 7 MALLEE 3 2 4 9 7 HEATHY OPEN FOREST 2 4 1 7 5 SHRUBLAND 3 - - 3 2 GRASSLAND - - - - - Total (#) 56 52 22 130 Total (%) 43% 40% 17%

43 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

Box 2. Flora species knowledge level by Vulnerability Group and Broad Vegetation Group preference (based on first BVG preference only)

Higher priority flora species (VG 1-3) with a ‘poor’ level of management and knowledge: COASTAL: Austrostipa echinata, Maireana decalvans, Orobanche cernua var. australiana, Podolepis muelleri GRASSY WOODLAND: Austrostipa oligostachya HEATHY WOODLAND: Caladenia vulgaris, Calochilus paludosus, Eucalyptus paludicola, Veronica derwentiana ssp. anisodonta, Paracaleana disjuncta MALLEE: Daviesia pectinata RIPARIAN: Crassula sieberiana, Gahnia radula, Glycine tabacina SHRUBLAND: Senecio megaglossus, Tricostularia pauciflora WETLAND: Adiantum capillus-veneris, Cryptostylis subulata, Eleocharis atricha, Gratiola pumilo, Hibbertia tenuis, Juncus prismatocarpus, Lycopodiella lateralis, Lycopodiella serpentina, Mazus pumilio, Olearia glandulosa, Pratia puberula, Ranunculus papulentus, Schizaea bifida, Schizaea fistulosa, Schoenus discifer, Spiranthes australis, Utricularia lateriflora

Higher priority flora species (VG 1-3) with ‘some’ level of management and knowledge: COASTAL: Caladenia bicalliata ssp. bicalliata, Corybas expansus, Spyridium coactilifolium GRASSY WOODLAND: Oreomyrrhis eriopoda, Prasophyllum occultans, Prasophyllum pruinosum HEATHY OPEN FOREST: Corybas unguiculatus, Lycopodium deuterodensum, Todea barbara HEATHY WOODLAND: Allocasuarina robusta, Brachyscome diversifolia, Caladenia ovata, Veronica derwentiana ssp. homalodonta, Euphrasia collina ssp. osbornii, Haloragis myriocarpa, Paracaleana minor, Pterostylis sp. Hale (R.Bates 21725), Viola betonicifolia ssp. betonicifolia MALLEE: Prasophyllum fecundum RIPARIAN: Helichrysum rutidolepis, Psilotum nudum, Wurmbea uniflora WETLAND: Microtis atrata, Microtis rara, Prasophyllum murfetii, Pterostylis falcata, Pterostylis uliginosa, Ranunculus inundatus, Thelymitra circumsepta, Thelymitra cyanea, Thelymitra mucida,

Higher priority flora species (VG 1-3) with a ‘fair’ level of management and knowledge: COASTAL: Calochilus cupreus, Dampiera lanceolata var. intermedia GRASSY WOODLAND: Caladenia argocalla, Pterostylis arenicola, Pterostylis bryophila, Pterostylis cucullata ssp. sylvicola HEATHY OPEN FOREST: Corybas dentatus HEATHY WOODLAND: Caladenia behrii, Caladenia colorata, Caladenia gladiolata, Caladenia rigida, Diuris brevifolia MALLEE: Acacia pinguifolia, Acacia rhetinocarpa, Prostanthera eurybioides RIPARIAN: Correa calycina var. calycina WETLAND: Thelymitra cyanapicata

Lower priority flora species (VG 4-6) with fair level of management and knowledge: GRASSY WOODLAND: Dianella longifolia var. grandis, Diuris behrii, Glycine latrobeana HEATHY WOODLAND: Caladenia valida MALLEE: Acacia menzelii

44 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

5.5 Habitat Re-establishment Planning Linkages & Analyses Summaries In this plan, ‘re-establishment’ is defined as management with long-term aims of geographically increasing habitat area, connectivity and function for target species. The range of activities may include active revegetation to assist regeneration through protection of remnant patches, e.g. by fencing. Re-establishment also aims in the long-term to reduce threats (and thus threat abatement needs) which are currently magnified due to the nature of fragmented remnant habitat surrounded by modified landscapes. ‘Threat abatement’ in this plan refers to types of activities managing a range of ‘current direct threats’. Such activities may involve direct on-ground immediate management (e.g. weed or predator control) or more preventative actions (e.g. track closure or environmental interpretation to reduce recreational impacts). It is recognised that such threat abatement activities are usually integral to the longer-term management of areas undergoing habitat re-establishment. This plan acknowledges that it is very difficult to categorise and assess threats to prioritise management. Threats do not operate discretely, and importantly, in reality management actions for conservation outcomes are also not discrete – they are considered with other actions and usually attempt to achieve multiple outcomes, blurring distinctions between ‘habitat re-establishment’, ‘threat abatement’ and even management of ‘impediments to recovery’. In this plan, threat abatement actions sit alongside actions to address habitat re-establishment and impediments to recovery, and are linked with each other where appropriate. On-ground management, for the purposes of this plan, must be targeted according to known species locations. Sub-regional priorities have been proposed to assist in determining species priorities, and therefore focus areas, within the region. Adjuncts to this plan will be developed to map areas according to specific management requirements and aims. It is recognised that planning for habitat re-establishment for species must form part of a broader planning process for landscape restoration. The threat analysis approach taken in this plan is described in Section 3.3, including the rationale for separating ‘current direct threats’ from ‘ecological stresses’. A review of linkages between the current direct threats assessed and associated ecological stresses, highlights that, while broad-scale vegetation clearance is not considered a current direct threat, a significant number of current threats link directly to ‘Habitat Loss and Modification’ and ‘Incremental Clearance’ ecosystem conversion stresses. Similarly, many threats link to ‘Indirect Ecosystem Effects’ stresses relating to habitat fragmentation, barriers to dispersal, edge effects and isolation (Appendices Part A). This implies that although the region has already undergone massive ecological change (approximately 12 per cent of pre-European vegetation remains due to historical clearance) habitat loss and modification remains as an ongoing impact manifested through a range of current direct threats. This emphasises the requirement to slow ongoing habitat degradation processes and to urgently increase vegetation restoration planning and management efforts. As indicated above, it is outside the scope of this species-based plan to propose landscape ecological community restoration targets, however this plan’s content and analysis should form an integral component of future landscape restoration planning. This plan has been developed to complement and inform other regional planning processes, including the Cape Borda to Barossa NatureLinks Plan, the AMLR NRM Plan and in particular the Draft AMLR Biodiversity Strategy. The Strategy proposes landscape restoration strategies and targets (around the principles of ‘maintain’, ‘improve’ or ‘reconstruct’) based on an analysis of landscape variables (e.g. pre-European vegetation, vegetation modification patterns, remnant vegetation, reservation, land use), using the best available information and data. Ideally, implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy and this plan would be concurrent. The method for incorporating ‘coarse’ and ‘fine’ filter planning processes for strategic restoration planning has already been conceptualised.11 The process involves an iterative method combining a series of analyses and overlays based around landscape and species-based variables. This planning process will be facilitated by this plan’s use of the sub-regional landscape and broad vegetation groups developed in the Draft Biodiversity Strategy. In addition, the significant impediments to threatened species recovery identified in this plan, are largely shared by any regional planning process. Therefore concurrent implementation would be mutually beneficial with many further significant opportunities for integration. It is imperative that the Strategy be finalised, adopted and implemented to drive strategic ecological restoration within AMLR.

45 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

In addition to the species prioritisation and threat analyses results, several overall conclusions can be proposed to assist in developing management and habitat re-establishment priorities for threatened species and vegetation community associations in the AMLR region. These are presented below.

At the regional scale, to benefit the majority of AMLR threatened flora species, management should focus on species habitats associated with the following vegetation groups (in order of priority): 1. Wetland 2. Heathy Woodland Note, the focus of sub-regional scale management may vary according to individual species priorities (Table 15). For each priority vegetation group, flora threat abatement priorities and other analyses summaries are presented below.

1. Wetland threatened flora priority association

Flora species - current direct threat Priority* Climate Change, Drought & Severe Weather   Very High Water Management & Use   Very High Weed Invasion  (see Appendices Part A for priority weed species) High

Broad vegetation group - current direct threat Water Management & Use   Very High Climate Change, Drought & Severe Weather   High Grazing & Disturbance by Stock   High Weed Invasion  (see Appendices Part A for priority weed species) High

Summary of analysis results: Sub-regional restoration strategies should be primarily planned according to the AMLR Biodiversity Strategy as described above, using priority ‘Wetland’ threatened species and ecological community extant distributions to assist in determining spatial priorities for restoration. Further summary results relevant to ‘Wetland’ and the threatened flora species associated with this vegetation group include:  The Fleurieu and Southern Fleurieu sub-regional landscapes are the most important areas (the former SRL containing numerous Wetland species not occurring in any other SRL). These areas are currently receiving focussed Wetland ecosystem recovery management (however management targeting individual flora species requirements is limited).  Other important SRLs for ‘Wetland’ species include Central Lofty Ranges and Barossa and Eastern Hills. These areas are not currently a ‘Wetland’ focus for recovery management.  There are threatened Wetland ecological communities which range outside of the Fleurieu Peninsula area, including Triglochin procerum Herbland and Gahnia filum Sedgeland which do not receive focussed recovery management, their distribution and condition is uncertain.  A significant number of the most vulnerable species (Group 1) are ‘Wetland’ species.  The level of ecological knowledge including sub-population status for the majority of threatened Wetland flora species is very poor. Many of these are regionally highly vulnerable (Groups 1-3), occurring in the Fleurieu sub-regional landscape.

* Only Very High and High threats shown.

 A threat category which is highly interactive with other threats, and therefore difficult to assess independently.

 A threat category with a high degree of assessment uncertainty due to lack of knowledge.

46 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

2. Heathy Woodland threatened flora priority association

Flora species - current direct threat Priority* Climate Change, Drought & Severe Weather   Very High Weed Invasion  (see Appendices Part A for priority weed species) Very High Inappropriate Fire Regimes   High

Broad vegetation group - current direct threat Grazing & Disturbance by Kangaroos   High Weed Invasion  (see Appendices Part A for priority weed species) High

Summary of analysis results: Sub-regional restoration strategies should be primarily planned according to the AMLR Biodiversity Strategy as described above, using priority ‘Heathy Woodland’ threatened species and ecological community extant distributions to assist in determining spatial priorities for restoration. Further summary results relevant to ‘Heathy Woodland’ and the threatened flora species associated with this vegetation group include:  The Foothills/Hills Face and Northern Lofty SRLs are the most important areas for Heathy Woodland threatened flora species. The Fleurieu and Central Lofty Ranges are the next most important SRLs.  Within the Heathy Woodland broad vegetation group, Eucalyptus fasciculosa +/- E. leucoxylon heathy woodland is a threatened ecological community within AMLR. The distribution and condition of this community is uncertain.  The level of ecological knowledge for the majority of threatened Heathy Woodland flora species is very low.

* Only Very High and High threats shown.

 A threat category which is highly interactive with other threats, and therefore difficult to assess independently.

 A threat category with a high degree of assessment uncertainty due to lack of knowledge.

47 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

At the regional scale, to benefit the majority of AMLR threatened fauna species, management should focus on species habitats associated with the following vegetation groups (in order of priority): 1. Grassy Woodland 2. Heathy Woodland Note, the focus of sub-regional scale management may vary according to individual species priorities (Table 16). For each priority vegetation group, fauna (excluding freshwater fish) threat abatement priorities and other analyses summaries are presented below.

1. Grassy Woodland threatened fauna priority association

Fauna species - current direct threat Priority* Grazing & Disturbance by Stock   Very High Inappropriate Fire Regimes   Very High Predation by Cats   Very High Climate Change, Drought & Severe Weather   High Firewood & Rock Removal High Grazing & Disturbance by Rabbits  High Residential & Commercial Development High Weed Invasion  (see Appendices Part A for priority weed species) High

Broad vegetation group - current direct threat Weed Invasion  (see Appendices Part A for priority weed species) Very High Grazing & Disturbance by Kangaroos   High Grazing & Disturbance by Stock   High Inappropriate Fire Regimes   High

Summary of analysis results: Sub-regional restoration strategies should be primarily planned according to the AMLR Biodiversity Strategy as described above, using priority ‘Grassy Woodland’ threatened species and ecological community extant distributions to assist in determining spatial priorities for restoration. Further summary results relevant to ‘Grassy Woodland’ and the threatened fauna species associated with this vegetation group include:  The Grassy Woodland fauna species are relatively evenly distributed across sub-regional landscapes. Further investigation is required to propose more refined across-species sub- regional priorities for threatened fauna species. However, several smaller SRLs have relatively high occurrence of fauna species including Northern Lofty Ranges, Foothills/Hills Face, Willunga Basin and Southern Coast.  The level of ecological knowledge for the majority of threatened Grassy Woodland fauna species is very poor. Many of these are regionally highly vulnerable (Groups 1-3).

* Only Very High and High threats shown.

 A threat category which is highly interactive with other threats, and therefore difficult to assess independently.

 A threat category with a high degree of assessment uncertainty due to lack of knowledge.

48 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

2. Heathy Woodland threatened fauna priority association

Fauna species - current direct threat Priority* Climate Change, Drought & Severe Weather   Very High Inappropriate Fire Regimes   Very High Grazing & Disturbance by Stock   High Predation by Cats   High Predation by Foxes   High

Broad vegetation group - current direct threat Grazing & Disturbance by Kangaroos   High Weed Invasion  (see Appendices Part A for priority weed species) High

Summary of analysis results: Sub-regional restoration strategies should be primarily planned according to the AMLR Biodiversity Strategy as described above, using priority ‘Heathy Woodland’ threatened species and ecological community extant distributions to assist in determining spatial priorities for restoration. Further summary results relevant to ‘Heathy Woodland’ and the threatened fauna species associated with this vegetation group include:  The Heathy Woodland fauna species are relatively evenly distributed across sub-regional landscapes. Further investigation is required to propose more refined across-species sub-regional priorities for threatened fauna species. However, several smaller SRLs have relatively high occurrence of fauna species including Northern Lofty Ranges, Foothills/Hills Face, Willunga Basin and Fleurieu.  The level of ecological knowledge for the majority of threatened Heathy Woodland fauna species is very poor. Many of these are regionally highly vulnerable (Groups 1-3).

* Only Very High and High threats shown.

 A threat category which is highly interactive with other threats, and therefore difficult to assess independently.

 A threat category with a high degree of assessment uncertainty due to lack of knowledge.

49 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

6. Impediments to Recovery

6.1 Capacity and Management There are many significant organisational-related impediments to threatened species recovery. Essentially, they revolve around themes of capacity and funding, knowledge management systems and community engagement. Impediment issues do not operate independently, that is, many are closely inter-related. Many important impediments are associated with much wider organisational issues and fully addressing these will be beyond the scope of this plan’s implementation. Relevant management objectives for impediments to recovery are presented in Section 7. Resources and Capacity  There is a general lack of resource capacity for: o Government management agencies, NGOs and community groups to address the recovery needs of all priority species and ecological communities, o Recovery programs to fully engage and utilise community groups to contribute to recovery needs of all priority species and ecological communities, and o Comprehensive monitoring and evaluation of threatened species recovery management performance.  Issues involving funding arrangements include: o Lack of adequate funding to address the recovery needs of all priority species and ecological communities, o Inadequate funding structures for securing long-term sustainability for recovery programs (also affecting project staff satisfaction and staff continuity), and o Lack of consistency and coordination of project funding sources, leading to difficulties in integrating management priorities across programs. Knowledge-base systems  Inadequate systems to assess long-term trends in regional conservation status (hence monitoring baselines are unknown and population decline is not detected in a timely way).  Inadequate ‘knowledge management’ by conservation agencies. Knowledge is poorly captured and stored in management agency documentation, databases, monitoring and reporting systems. Consequently there is a great deal of uncertainty in relation to the status of most extant threatened species and communities. This poor institutional knowledge also leads to poor project planning, information dissemination, sharing of knowledge and continuity in program management. Note, the term ‘knowledge’ refers to both descriptive and database forms of knowledge.  Inadequate mapping and condition assessment of threatened ecological communities.  Current database systems and content are lacking for effective threatened species recovery planning. Issues include: o Poor integration of corporate and non-corporate databases o Poor systems structures o Persistent (known) erroneous and unreliable records o Lack of validation systems (or implementation thereof) o Incomplete minimum dataset information (e.g. unknown spatial precision for hundreds of threatened flora records) o Difficulty in applying consistent filtering to extract reliable data o Lack of capacity to document changes to extant status for individual records or sub- populations, and o Unsubmitted observation records to corporate databases for many significant species.

50 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

Community engagement & coordination  Insufficient community engagement, inter-agency engagement and coordination in recovery programs to address all recovery priorities.  Insufficient engagement with Aboriginal stakeholders in recovery programs.  The awareness levels concerning AMLR threatened species and recovery programs in AMLR are generally low amongst the urban and rural resident population. Other  Lack of knowledge of regional conservation priorities to implement more integrated and coordinated recovery programs.  Insufficient applied research to inform management and planning (e.g. disturbance regimes and threat abatement interactions).  State and local government policy and planning conflicts (e.g. economic development and population policies versus conservation policies), driving numerous direct threats to threatened species and ecological community populations.

6.2 Knowledge Gaps A major knowledge gap for the majority of species and ecological communities included in this plan is the lack of knowledge concerning distributions (including both area of occupancy and extent of occurrence). This is, in part caused by database related issues as discussed above but is also due to the vast amount of known threatened species observations not submitted to, or shared with, corporate databases. This includes anecdotal observations by individuals (particularly for many threatened flora species) and observation records stored by universities, NGOs and community groups. Through consultation with regional experts, over 30 per cent of flora species included in this plan have known occurrences that have not been captured in any database record system. Most of these species are very rare and reviewing and incorporating anecdotal records and external database information into existing systems would significantly increase species distributional knowledge and thus contribute to a more robust assessment of species national, State and regional status. More complete databases will also contribute to improving species distribution modelling efforts (vital for investigating climate change impacts), general regional planning, and further species prioritisation. There is also uncertainty in many species distributions due to records requiring re-visiting and surveying to confirm population status, particularly for more cryptic fauna species or annual and ephemeral flora species. This would include improving the spatial precision of location coordinates for records of many priority species in biological database systems. Improving species sub-population status and distributional knowledge (including database record quality) will significantly contribute to quantifying species and ecological community decline. This knowledge is vital for improving future conservation status assessments and prioritisation processes. Recovery planning and management is impeded by the significant ecological knowledge gaps for the range of species and ecological communities included in this plan. This includes the issues of population dynamics and species persistence, particularly for remnant, small isolated sub-populations resulting from dramatic historical habitat decline and which are currently experiencing a range of direct threats. It is not intended in this plan to detail the full range of ecological knowledge gaps that exists for threatened species and ecological communities. However, to inform immediacy of research needs, general knowledge has been assessed for each species (Section 5.4). The primary research needs that should be addressed during the life of this plan are included in the management actions in Section 7. In addition, details on each species, including knowledge gaps about species ecology captured through personal communication that was not otherwise documented, are presented in the species profiles (Appendices Part B).

51 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

7. Recovery Management Framework The long-term aim of the plan is to reduce the probability of threatened species and ecological communities of the AMLR region becoming extinct in the wild, and to maximise species’ viability. Devising measurable recovery objectives with performance criteria to meet this aim is the means by which both short and long-term recovery management success can be determined. However, considering the broad scope of this plan, development of comprehensive and quantitative recovery targets to achieve recovery strategies within the AMLR is constrained by a range of factors. These include: 1. Extensive loss of habitat. The ecological systems in AMLR have been fundamentally modified by changes occurring in the last 200 years. 2. There is an extinction debt. There are large numbers of threatened species and numerous threatened ecological communities, many of which are likely on an extinction trajectory. 3. There are significant knowledge gaps of species and community ecological status and threatening processes. 4. There is an urgent requirement to improve corporate knowledge-base systems to facilitate monitoring of threatened species recovery and revisions of conservation status. 5. Coordination and integration of prioritised recovery management is challenging as current on-ground management activities are undertaken by a very diverse range of government and non-government stakeholders (planning and policy responsibilities are similarly varied). 6. Currently there are limited resources and capacity to achieve even modest conservation targets. 7. The intended duration of this plan is only five years. Consequently this recovery plan recognises that the management proposed comprises only an initial phase of regional recovery, and that one plan alone cannot address all the complex ecological and management issues involved in recovering threatened species and ecological communities within the AMLR region. Further, due to the diversity of current conservation management and its decentralised nature throughout the region, it is proposed that additional sub-regional threat abatement planning is required to implement targeted actions (that reflect broader regional priorities). To this end, the main purpose of this plan is, through mainly a species-based analysis, to inform threat abatement implementation by proposing both regional and sub-regional priorities according to transparent analyses of the best available information and data. This plan only presents a summary of this work. More detailed analysis results will be presented elsewhere by DEH for implementation use. The objectives and management actions proposed under the five strategic management themes attempt to set a realistic management framework over the next five years. In essence, this initial phase of regional recovery aims to:  Increase recovery resources, capacity and coordination  Improve planning strategies to reflect regional priorities and address information gaps  Increase the current level of priority threat abatement activities  Contribute to developing the information base and systems necessary to enhance recovery of threatened species and ecological communities  Continue developing and refining status assessment and prioritisation systems, and  Complement and inform other relevant regional biodiversity planning processes.

52 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

Threatened species and ecological community recovery for the AMLR region requires urgent and sustained action under five broad strategic management themes: 1. Abatement of current direct threats 2. Habitat re-establishment 3. Impediments to recovery 4. Stakeholder engagement 5. Ex-situ conservation

7.1 Objectives

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT THEME 1 – CURRENT DIRECT THREATS

OBJECTIVE THEME/OBJECTIVE ACTION LINK

O1.1 To reduce current levels of threats to priority threatened A1.1-A1.22 species, their habitats and ecological communities.

Note: for each assessed current direct threat, regional threat priorities for flora and fauna targets, broad vegetation groups and associated threatened ecological communities are presented in Section 5.3. In some cases specific actions are not presented for threats assessed as low priority across taxa and broad vegetation groups. Priority actions have been developed but are not exhaustive, in consideration of the plan’s scope and constraints as discussed above. However, actions will direct and inform more specific site-based activities as part of further implementation planning.

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT THEME 2 – HABITAT RE-ESTABLISHMENT

OBJECTIVE THEME/OBJECTIVE ACTION LINK

O2.1 To increase habitat area, connectivity and functionality for A2.1; A3.2; priority threatened species and ecological communities. A3.19; A4.2

53 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT THEME 3 – IMPEDIMENTS TO RECOVERY

OBJECTIVE THEME/OBJECTIVE ACTION LINK

Recovery activity, coordination and integration of management

O3.1 To strengthen recovery activity, coordination and integration for A3.1-A3.4; priority threatened species and ecological communities. A4.1; A4.2 Knowledge-base systems O3.2 To strengthen agency monitoring and knowledge-base systems to A3.5-A3.9 facilitate threatened species and ecological community recovery. Knowledge gaps O3.3 To improve knowledge of extant threatened species’ regional A3.10-A3.14 distribution, status and trend. O3.4 To improve knowledge of the effects of threat abatement A3.15 interactions on threatened species. O3.5 To improve knowledge of poorly known key threats to threatened A3.16-A3.19; species. A3.22 O3.6 To improve knowledge of the spatial distributions of poorly known A3.18; A3.19 key threats. O3.7 To improve knowledge of extant threatened ecological A3.13; A3.20 community regional distribution, condition and status. O3.8 To increase the number of applied research projects addressing A3.21 key knowledge gaps.

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT THEME 4 – STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

OBJECTIVE THEME/OBJECTIVE ACTION LINK

Stakeholder engagement O4.1 To inform, encourage and support landholder and community A4.1; A4.2; participation in regional recovery in line with regional priorities. A4.5; A1.2 O4.2 To increase the awareness level concerning AMLR threatened A4.1 species and recovery programs in the urban and rural resident population. O4.3 To increase the level of engagement with Aboriginal stakeholders A4.3; A4.4 in existing and new recovery programs.

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT THEME 5 – EX-SITU CONSERVATION

OBJECTIVE THEME/OBJECTIVE ACTION LINK

O5.1 To increase ex-situ conservation efforts for priority species to A5.1-A5.2 safeguard against the risk of regional species extinction.

54 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

7.2 Actions

Note: Responsibilities are in approximate order of lead agency or organisation (they represent proposed responsibilities only and are not confined to legislative obligations). PC = Performance Criteria (see Section 7.3). OBJ. = Objective (see Section 7.1).

ACTION THEME/ACTION RESPONSIBILITIES PC LINK OBJ. LINK

Threat abatement (current direct threats)

A1.1 Threat Abatement Planning DEH; PC1; PC2; O1.1 AMLRNRMB; PC3; PC4; Use prioritisation results to influence threat SAMDBNRMB; PC5; PC9; abatement programs to maximise outcomes for AMLRRRT; NVC; PC30 threatened species and ecological community NGO; CG; RP programs.

A1.2 Threat Abatement Planning DEH; PC2; PC38 O1.1 AMLRNRMB; Ensure threat abatement for recovery outcomes SAMDBNRMB; is goal-based, adaptive and coordinated across NGO; RP properties and tenures, with monitoring and analyses of results.

A1.3 Stock grazing & disturbance DEH; PC10; O1.1 AMLRNRMB; PC3.1; PC4 Prevent and/or manage grazing at priority SAMDBNRMB; locations of threatened species and ecological AMLRRRT; NGO; communities as determined by prioritisation and LM; RP associated tools.

A1.4 Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources DEH; PIRSA; NGO PC11 O1.1 Increase legislative protection of threatened freshwater fish species through listing on threatened species schedules.

A1.5 Recreational Activities DEH; PC10 O1.1 AMLRNRMB; Prevent and/or manage impacts of recreational SAMDBNRMB; activities at priority locations of threatened AMLRRRT; LG; species and ecological communities as CG; NGO determined by prioritisation and associated tools.

A1.6 Disease & Insect Damage - Phytophthora DEH; PC12 O1.1 AMLRNRMB; Land management agencies implement best AMLRRRT; practice according to the Phytophthora DWLBC; LM Management Guidelines (2006).

A1.7 Disease & Insect Damage - Phytophthora DEH; PC13 O1.1 AMLRNRMB; RP; Prevent Phytophthora infestation at uninfested AMLRRRT locations of priority species that are considered susceptible.

A1.8 Kangaroos DEH; PC10; O1.1 AMLRNRMB; PC3.2; PC4 Investigate management options at locations SAMDBNRMB; where kangaroos are known to be having an RP; LM adverse impact on priority threatened species and ecological communities, and develop appropriate programs.

55 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

ACTION THEME/ACTION RESPONSIBILITIES PC LINK OBJ. LINK

A1.9 Rabbits DWLBC; DEH; PC10; O1.1 AMLRNRMB; PC4.1 Minimise impacts of grazing by rabbits (and SAMDBNRMB; hares) at priority locations of threatened species LM; LG and ecological communities as determined by prioritisation and associated tools.

A1.10 Foxes DEH; PC14; O1.1 AMLRNRMB; PC4.2; Develop regional protocols for fox baiting SAMDBNRMB; PC10 including identification of priority locations and AMLRRRT; monitoring procedures. DWLBC; RP

A1.11 Foxes DEH; PC10; O1.1 AMLRNRMB; PC4.2 If feasible for species recovery outcomes, SAMDBNRMB; implement landscape scale fox baiting AMLRRRT; programs. DWLBC; LM; RP

A1.12 Cats and Dogs DEH; PC15; PC4 O1.1 AMLRNRMB; Promote responsible cat and dog ownership SAMDBNRMB; through education, council by-laws and policies. AMLRRRT; LG; NGO; RP

A1.13 Weeds DEH; PC10; PC3; O1.1 AMLRNRMB; PC4.1 Minimise impacts of weeds at priority locations of SAMDBNRMB; threatened species and ecological communities AMLRRRT; RP; as determined by prioritisation and associated NGO; DWLBC; tools. SAW; FSA; LG

A1.14 Weeds DEH; PC16; PC3 O1.1 AMLRNRMB; Implement improved weed hygiene control SAMDBNRMB; measures (e.g. tool and vehicle wash-downs, AMLRRRT; particularly for earth moving machinery in DWLBC; SAW; conservation areas). FSA; LG

A1.15 Fire Management DEH PC17; O1.1 PC10; Improve information quality and dissemination PC22 for prescribed burning and fire suppression activities to protect and manage threatened species and ecological community locations.

A1.16 Site Management (also Pollution & Poisoning, DEH; PC6; PC17; O1.1 Firewood & Rock Removal) AMLRNRMB; PC10; SAMDBNRMB; PC22 Provide improved and targeted information on AMLRRRT; RP; threatened species and ecological communities NGO; to assist organisations to minimise the likelihood of adverse impacts on threatened species and ecological communities (e.g. targeting DWLBC, NVC, SAW, FSA, LG, NRM & DEH).

A1.17 Water - Management DEH; PC10; O1.1 AMLRNRMB; PC3.1 Minimise impacts of inappropriate water use at SAMDBNRMB; priority locations of threatened species and AMLRRRT; RP; ecological communities as determined by DWLBC; SAW; prioritisation and associated tools. EPA; LG; CC

A1.18 Water - Forestry FSA; AMLRNRMB; PC18; O1.1 SAMDBNRMB; PC3.1 Increase consideration of threatened species DWLBC; DEH; and ecological community requirements during AMLRRRT; SAW;

56 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

ACTION THEME/ACTION RESPONSIBILITIES PC LINK OBJ. LINK

the planning process of forestry activities. LG; NGO

A1.19 Water – Planning FSA; AMLRNRMB; PC18; O1.1 SAMDBNRMB; PC3.1; Ensure active contribution to Water Allocation DWLBC; DEH; PC10 Planning by key stakeholders involved in AMLRRRT; SAW; recovery management of threatened species EPA; LG; NGO and ecological communities.

A1.20 Water - Freshwater fish recovery planning DEH, DWLBC, PC10 O1.1 PIRSA; Support the implementation of the Draft Action AGDEWHA, LG, Plan for South Australia’s Freshwater Fish for SAMDBNRMB; priority AMLR species. AMLRNRMB; NFASA; SAW; EPA; NGO

A1.21 Residential & Commercial Development LG; PSA; DEH; PC6; PC10; O1.1 AMLRRRT; NGO; PC17; Provide targeted information on threatened RP PC4.1 species and ecological communities to relevant government planning and assessment departments and local councils to inform development planning controls and assessment.

A1.22 Roadside Maintenance LG; DEH; PC19; O1.1 AMLRRRT; DTEI; PC10 Provide targeted information on threatened NGO; RP species and ecological communities to relevant bodies to minimise impacts of road and track maintenance activities.

Habitat re-establishment

A2.1 Further analyse distribution and habitat AMLRRRT; DEH PC8 O2.1 requirements of priority species to inform habitat re-establishment initiatives. Note: To be undertaken after key impediments to recovery actions commenced. See other important related actions A3.2; A3.19; A4.2.

Recovery activity, coordination and integration of management

A3.1 State and federal NRM programs AMLRNRMB; PC1 O3.1 SAMDBNRMB; Ensure that priority threatened species and DEH; NGO; NVC ecological community requirements are integrated into State and Commonwealth NRM programs.

A3.2 Regional landscape restoration plans DEH; PC2; PC3; O3.1; AMLRNRMB; PC4; PC5 O2.1; O4.1 Ensure that threatened species and ecological SAMDBNRMB; communities priorities are integrated into AMLRRRT regional landscape restoration plans.

A3.3 Regional Recovery Team AGDEWHA; PC7 O3.1 AMLRNRMBB; Create an ‘AMLR Regional Recovery Team’ SAMDBNRMB; (AMLRRRT) to implement this plan and facilitate DEH integrated recovery actions with government and non-government groups.

57 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

ACTION THEME/ACTION RESPONSIBILITIES PC LINK OBJ. LINK

A3.4 Review plan analyses AMLRRRT; DEH; PC8 O3.1 AMLRNRMB Regularly review the species inclusion, prioritisation and threat analysis processes undertaken in this plan.

Knowledge-base systems

A3.5 Conservation rating systems DEH; PC20 O3.2 AMLRNRMB; Improve regional conservation rating systems to SAMDBNRMB; facilitate long-term monitoring of threatened AMLRRRT species and ecological community conservation status.

A3.6 Monitoring and reporting system DEH; PC21 O3.2 AMLRNRMB; Develop an integrated regional monitoring and SAMDBNRMB; reporting system to enable long-term tracking of AMLRRRT priority species status.

A3.7 Database capacity and accessibility DEH; AMLRRRT PC22 O3.2 Improve the capacity and accessibility of the corporate databases to support key stakeholders involved in threatened species recovery management and planning.

A3.8 Knowledge-base system DEH; AMLRRRT PC23 O3.2 Develop an interactive knowledge-base system to enable sharing of information on activities and outcomes of regional-specific recovery projects.

A3.9 Analyse and review monitoring DEH; AMLRRRT PC38 O3.2 Analyse monitoring data and use results to review outcomes and management actions.

Knowledge Gaps

A3.10 Extant distributions (sub-population status) DEH; RP; NGO; PC25; O3.3 CG PC26 Revisit database record sites to confirm extant status and to collect minimum dataset information for priority species.

A3.11 Extant distributions (uncaptured data) DEH; RP; NGO; PC25 O3.3 CG Visit flora sites identified from anecdotal knowledge and collect minimum dataset information.

A3.12 Extant distributions (uncaptured data) DEH; AMLRRRT PC27; O3.3 PC17 Review existing species observation data held by universities, NGOs and community groups and capture into corporate databases.

A3.13 Extant distributions (potential) DEH; AMLRRRT; PC26; O3.3; O3.7 NGO; RP PC28 Conduct searches for populations of priority threatened species and ecological communities, informed by predictive modelling and other information.

58 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

ACTION THEME/ACTION RESPONSIBILITIES PC LINK OBJ. LINK

A3.14 Population trends DEH; AMLRRRT; PC29 O3.3 UNI Investigate more effective data treatment and analysis methods to improve knowledge of priority species’ population trend.

A3.15 Threat abatement interactions DEH; PC30; PC9; O3.4 AMLRNRMB; PC3; PC4 Promote applied research targeting priority SAMDBNRMB; RP species and communities to investigate threat abatement responses and interactions, particularly related to disturbance regimes.

A3.16 Foxes DEH; PC37; O3.5 AMLRNRMB; PC30 Monitor response of key threatened species and SAMDBNRMB other threats (e.g. rabbits) to fox baiting at priority sites.

A3.17 Fire DEH; RP PC31; O3.5 PC3.2; PC4 Improve knowledge of fire responses of priority species which are fire sensitive or fire dependent.

A3.18 Phytophthora DEH; UNI; PC32; O3.6; O3.5 AMLRNRMB; PC28; Conduct risk analysis for Phytophthora SAMDBNRMB PC39 susceptibility for threatened species in conjunction with predictive modelling of Phytophthora distribution.

A3.19 Climate Change DEH; PC32; O3.5; AMLRNRMB; PC28; PC3; O3.6; O2.1 Conduct risk analysis for priority species and SAMDBNRMB; PC4 communities in conjunction with predictive AMLRRRT; NGO modelling of projected climate change impacts.

A3.20 Ecological Communities DEH; PC24; PC9 O3.7 AMLRNRMB; Improve mapping and review recovery SAMDBNRMB; requirements of AMLR priority threatened AMLRRRT; RP ecological communities.

A3.21 Collaborative Research UNI; DEH; PC36 O3.8 AMLRRRT; NGO Conduct collaborative university research projects targeting threatened species and ecological community priorities.

A3.22 Predation impacts review DEH; AMLRRRT; PC40 O3.5 NGO; RP Conduct a review and comprehensive threat analysis to better determine the significance of predation impacts on priority threatened fauna species.

Stakeholder Engagement

A4.1 Stakeholder engagement strategy AMLRRRT PC33 O4.1; O4.2; O3.1 Develop and implement a regional recovery stakeholder engagement strategy (to guide plan implementation).

A4.2 Disseminate plan information DEH; PC6 O4.1; AMLRNRMB; O2.1; O3.1 Develop and disseminate a project information AMLRRRT tool to inform and assist government and non-

59 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

ACTION THEME/ACTION RESPONSIBILITIES PC LINK OBJ. LINK

government restoration planners/advisors and threatened species and ecological community recovery programs.

A4.3 Aboriginal engagement protocols RP; DEH; CG; PC34 O4.3 NGO All groups involved with threatened species and ecological community recovery activities utilise the Four Nations NRM Governance Group Consultation & Engagement Protocols (2008) publication to guide appropriate consultation.

A4.4 Four Nations Governance Group engagement RP PC35 O4.3 Existing and new recovery programs within the AMLR NRM Region engage the Four Nations NRM Governance Group to determine project- specific consultation requirements.

A4.5 Community volunteer groups capacity AMLRRRT PC41 O4.1 Increase capacity of landholders and community groups to implement programs targeting regional threatened species and ecological community priorities.

Ex-situ Conservation

A5.1 Review ex-situ conservation requirements AMLRRRT; DEH PC42 O5.1 Conduct a review of priority species to determine ex-situ conservation requirements.

A5.2 Support ex-situ conservation programs AMLRRRT PC43 O5.1 Support existing ex-situ conservation programs to target regional priorities.

60 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

7.3 Performance Criteria

Priority code: CORE1 = Primary performance criteria to achieve priority management needs, representing minimum funding required (see Section 8.1) to undertake listed actions or part-actions according to prioritisation. CORE2 = Primary performance criteria to achieve other priority management needs representing next level of funding required (see Section 8.1) to undertake listed actions or part-actions according to prioritisation.

PRIORITY PERFORMANCE CRITERIA DESCRIPTION ACTION LINK CODE

PC1 CORE1 Priorities as determined by this plan and associated tool are A3.1; A1.1 incorporated into NRM Investment Strategies, and other relevant funding programs (e.g. NVC & DEH grant programs) by 2010.

PC2 CORE1 Priorities as determined by this plan are incorporated into the A3.2; A1.1; A1.2 Draft AMLR Biodiversity Strategy and the Cape Borda to Barossa NatureLinks Plan by 2010, and other relevant planning programs.

PC3 CORE1 Flora species threat abatement, habitat re-establishment and A3.2; A1.1; A3.15; knowledge gap actions indicated are directed towards the A3.19; A1.13; following vegetation groups and sub-regional landscapes (in A1.14 order of priority):

PC3.1 Wetland (Fleurieu, Southern Fleurieu, Central Lofty, Barossa A1.3; A1.17-A1.19 and Eastern Hills) by 2011.

PC3.2 Heathy Woodland (Foothills/Hills Face, Northern Lofty, A3.17; A1.8 Fleurieu, Central Lofty) by 2012. Note: Refer to Table 15 for individual species sub-regional priorities.

PC4 CORE1 Fauna species threat abatement, habitat re-establishment and A3.2; A1.1; A1.3; knowledge gap actions indicated are directed towards the A3.15; A3.17; following vegetation groups (in order of priority): A3.19; A1.8; A1.12

PC4.1 Grassy Woodland by 2011. A1.9; A1.13; A1.21

PC4.2 Heathy Woodland by 2012. A1.10; A1.11

Note: further planning and research required to propose across-species sub- regional priorities for fauna. Refer to Table 16 for individual species sub- regional priorities.

PC5 CORE1 Management for ‘Very High’ and ‘High’ sub-regional priority A3.2; A1.1 species other than those included in PC3 and PC4 is planned and implemented by 2012 (note, threat abatement priorities have been included in Section 8.1 costing analyses).

PC6 CORE1 Plan information including species profiles disseminated to A4.2 stakeholders and information tool available on project website by 2010.

PC7 CORE1 AMLR Regional Recovery Team commenced by end 2009. A3.3

PC8 CORE1 The plan’s prioritisation analysis processes are reviewed with A2.1; A3.4 further analyses conducted to contribute to habitat re- establishment and other recovery outcomes, annually.

PC9 CORE1 Existing recovery programs are targeting new priorities proposed A1.1; A3.20; A3.15 in this plan, where practicable, by end 2009.

61 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

PRIORITY PERFORMANCE CRITERIA DESCRIPTION ACTION LINK CODE

PC10 CORE1 Priority locations and activities identified using the prioritisation A1.3; A1.5; A1.8- tool, and implementation commenced by 2010. A1.11; A1.13; A1.15-A1.17; A1.19-A1.22

PC11 CORE1 Conservation status of freshwater fish is assessed and legislative A1.4 protection revised as required by 2010.

PC12 CORE2 Land managers and contractors are aware of and implementing A1.6 the Phytophthora Management Guidelines (2006) by 2010.

PC13 CORE2 A framework for management of uninfested areas for A1.7 Phytophthora developed incorporating priority locations of susceptible threatened species by 2012.

PC14 CORE1 Fox baiting review completed by 2010. A1.10

PC15 CORE2 Conduct at least one update of responsible cat ownership A1.12 information in conjunction with facilitating an information forum to strengthen council by-laws.

PC16 CORE2 Weed hygiene protocol developed and implemented by land A1.14 management agencies and contractors by 2011.

PC17 CORE1 Data from threatened species projects is incorporated into A1.15; A1.16; corporate biological databases by 2014. A1.21; A3.12

PC18 CORE1 Ecological water requirements of priority threatened species and A1.18; A1.19 ecological communities are investigated and the results communicated to relevant bodies by 2012.

PC19 CORE2 Information of known locations incorporated into Council’s A1.22 Roadside Significant Sites Database and roadside markers installed where required by 2011.

PC20 CORE2 Benchmarks and regional conservation rating systems A3.5 developed by 2014.

PC21 CORE2 Regional monitoring and reporting system established by 2013. A3.6

PC22 CORE1 Recommendations regarding improvements and requirements A3.7; A1.15; A1.16 provided to BDBSA system review by 2011.

PC23 CORE1 Knowledge base system trialled by 2013. A3.8

PC24 CORE1 Mapping and review commenced for AMLR ‘Very High’ and A3.20 ‘High’ priority ecological communities by 2011.

PC25 CORE1 Records for more than 50% of poorly known priority flora species A3.10; A3.11 reviewed by 2012, remainder of priority species by 2014.

PC26 CORE1 Surveys commenced for more than 50% of poorly known priority A3.10; A3.13 species reviewed by 2012, remainder of priority species by 2014.

PC27 CORE2 All relevant universities, NGOs and other groups involved in data A3.12 sharing arrangements for priority species by 2011.

PC28 CORE2 Priority threatened species data incorporated into current A3.13; A3.18; project work modelling distributions of species and poorly known A3.19 threats by 2011.

PC29 CORE1 Data treatment and analysis methodology trialled for priority A3.14 species by 2011.

62 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

PRIORITY PERFORMANCE CRITERIA DESCRIPTION ACTION LINK CODE

PC30 CORE2 Monitoring programs for priority threat abatement activities A3.15; A3.16; A1.1 consider interactions between threats and unintended impacts on other species.

PC31 CORE2 Recovery programs review knowledge gaps for fire sensitive and A3.17 fire dependent priority species, and implement targeted vital attribute data collection, by 2011.

PC32 CORE1 Risk analysis conducted for priority species and ecological A3.18; A3.19 communities by 2012.

PC33 CORE2 Community Engagement Strategy prepared and adopted by A4.1 end 2009.

PC34 CORE2 All groups involved with recovery activities have reviewed and A4.3 acted upon relevant actions according to the Consultation & Engagement Protocols (2008) publication by 2010.

PC35 CORE1 All formal recovery programs have engaged with the Four A4.4 Nations NRM Governance Group, by 2011.

PC36 CORE2 Funding (through collaborative arrangements) in place for at A3.21 least two honours or post-graduate research projects per year by 2010.

PC37 CORE2 Fox baiting programs for threatened species identified and A3.16 monitoring for recovery outcomes established by 2011.

PC38 CORE2 Monitoring established and analysis and review performed A3.9; A1.2 annually for all projects implementing priorities as determined by this plan.

PC39 CORE2 Phytophthora susceptibility trials conducted on 10% of priority A3.18 flora species from high risk families by 2014.

PC40 CORE1 Predation impacts review including threat analysis conducted by A3.22 2011.

PC41 CORE1 Contribute additional funds to at least two existing community A4.5 volunteer grant programs per year, tied to specified regional priorities.

PC42 CORE1 Ex-situ conservation requirements review completed by 2012. A5.1

PC43 CORE2 Existing ex-situ conservation programs are targeting regional A5.2 priorities by 2013.

7.4 Management Practices It is important that any management practices associated with recovery actions that may have a significant impact on species or on habitat critical to the survival of species in this plan are carefully considered. Generally, it is recommended that any activities that increase or contribute to the threats identified in this plan be avoided where practicable. Section 3.3 details the nature of regional-specific threats assessed in this plan, and includes descriptions on undesirable management practices associated with each threat. Summaries of the threat analysis have been presented, including species-specific results and regional across-species results, to indicate important threats for which undesirable management practices need to be considered.

63 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

The plan has also highlighted the importance of considering the effects of management practices on both target species and off-target species. Similarly, assumed benefits of management practices aimed at the broader ecological community level on threatened species need to be carefully considered and monitored. It is envisaged that the implementation of several knowledge-base system related actions proposed in this plan will improve information capture and accessibility concerning recovery activities and methods. This will serve to encourage and promote appropriate and effective management practices.

8. Plan Administration

8.1 Timelines and Costs This plan is intended for use by natural resource managers, planners and funding partners to guide regional investment of threatened species projects. For the most part, implementation of the plan will rely on additional funding sources from both within and outside of the region. Possible funding sources include the AMLRNRMB, SAMDBNRMB, Caring for Our Country and Threatened Species Network. For some species a number of the actions included in this plan are already being undertaken in various forms by numerous agencies and individuals. Also, several species included within this regional recovery plan, are the subject of a national single or multi-species recovery plan. Cost estimates for some actions which are also to be undertaken as part of these national recovery plans are therefore potentially an overestimate. However, in general it is more likely that costs have been underestimated due to the difficulty in comprehensively costing site-specific management requirements for the numerous species and communities included in this plan. It will primarily be the responsibility of the proposed Regional Recovery Team to facilitate recovery coordination and integration, which will involve liaison with existing recovery teams to ensure there is no overlap or doubling up of efforts with regard to specific actions. The total funding required to support implementation over five years is estimated to be $10,164,680. The priorities for funding are indicated in the performance criteria above. The estimated costs of undertaking the actions are presented below.

ACTION THEME/ACTION/COST DESCRIPTION TOTAL

Threat abatement (current direct threats)

A1.1-1.2 Threat Abatement Planning Included in Implementation and Stakeholder Engagement costs.

A1.3 Stock grazing & disturbance Any priority species (VG 1-3) with High or Very High Stock Grazing & 400,000 Disturbance threat rating for High or Very High sub-regional priorities. 13 priority flora & fauna species, assume action at 80 priority sites (potential of 170 sites). Note, requiring on-ground assessment. Sites occurring in conservation areas not included. Based on small-scale fencing of sub-populations (average 2km fencing @ $2500/km/site).

A1.4 Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources Included in Implementation and Stakeholder Engagement costs.

A1.5 Recreational Activities Planning costs Included in Implementation costs. Other likely cost items 60,000 include signage, fencing, track works and education activities (12 potential sites for 5 priority flora species, estimated $5,000/site).

64 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

A1.6 Disease & Insect Damage – Phytophthora Included in Implementation and Stakeholder Engagement costs.

A1.7 Disease & Insect Damage – Phytophthora Planning costs Included in Implementation costs. Other likely cost items 20,000 include signage, track closure, site closures and education activities, pending achievement of Action A3.18.

A1.8 Kangaroos Included in Implementation and Stakeholder Engagement costs.

A1.9 Rabbits Priority species (VG 1-3) with High or Very High Rabbit Grazing & Disturbance 178,000 threat rating for High or Very High sub-regional priorities. 7 priority flora species over 53 priority sites identified (note, requiring on-ground assessment). Assuming 25% of total sites targeted each year, based on $2,500/site/year, increasing by 20% each year for follow up works.

A1.10 Foxes Included in Implementation and Stakeholder Engagement costs.

A1.11 Foxes Will require funding estimates after strategic assessment and planning, and will be dependant on achievement of key knowledge gap actions.

A1.12 Cats Community consultation, forums, brochure updates and printing. Other costs 15,000 included in Implementation and Stakeholder Engagement costs.

A1.13 Weeds (minimise impacts) Priority species (VG 1-2) with Medium, High or Very High Weed threat ratings 530,000 for High or Very High Sub-regional priorities (39 species over 158 sites). Assumes weed control primarily by community groups. Assuming 25% of total sites targeted each year, based on $2,500/site/year, increasing by 20% each year for follow up works. Other priority species (VG 3-6) with High or Very High Weed threat ratings, for 560,000 High or Very High Sub-regional priorities (25 species over 167 sites). Note, 23 sites overlapping with above VG 1-2 priority sites have been accounted for. Assumes weed control primarily by community groups. Assuming 25% of total sites targeted each year, based on $2,500/site/year, increasing by 20% each year for follow up works.

A1.14 Weeds (hygiene control) Included in Implementation and Stakeholder Engagement costs.

A1.15 Fire Management Included in Implementation and Stakeholder Engagement costs.

A1.16 Site Management (also Pollution & Poisoning, Firewood & Rock Removal) Included in Implementation and Stakeholder Engagement costs.

A1.17 Water - Management Information provision. Included in Implementation and Stakeholder Engagement costs.

A1.18 Water – Forestry Included in Implementation and Stakeholder Engagement costs.

65 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

A1.19 Water – Planning Included in Implementation and Stakeholder Engagement costs.

A1.20 Water - Freshwater fish recovery planning Included in Implementation and Stakeholder Engagement costs.

A1.21 Residential & Commercial Development Included in Implementation and Stakeholder Engagement costs.

A1.22 Roadside Maintenance Included in Implementation and Stakeholder Engagement costs.

Habitat re-establishment planning

A2.1 Analysis and planning included in Implementation costs, and pending achievement of several ‘Impediments to Recovery’ related actions.

Implementation - Recovery activity, coordination of management

A3.1 State and federal NRM programs Included in Implementation and Stakeholder Engagement costs.

A3.2 Regional landscape restoration plans (input) Included in Implementation and Stakeholder Engagement costs.

A3.3 Regional Recovery Team Coordination, Planning & Analysis Officers Salaries + on-costs (PO3 & PO2 positions) 895,000 Operating costs (travel, computing, administration) 32,000 Operating costs 9,000 Threatened Fauna & Flora Recovery Officers Salaries + on-costs (5 x PO2 positions) 2,050,000 Operating costs (25K/position/year) 625,000 Threatened Ecological Community Recovery Officers Salaries + on-costs (3 x PO2 positions) 1,230,000 Operating costs (25K/position/year) 375,000 Recovery Extension/Community Engagement Officer Salary + on-costs (1 x PO2 positions) 410,000 Operating costs (25K/position/year) 125,000

A3.4 Review plan analyses Included in Implementation costs, plus additional contractor costs 30,000 (approximately 300 hours at $100/hour).

Knowledge-base systems

A3.5 Conservation rating systems Collaborative funding contribution. 20,000

A3.6 Monitoring and reporting system Collaborative funding contribution. 30,000

66 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

A3.7 Database capacity and accessibility Collaborative funding contribution. 20,000

A3.8 Knowledge-base system Contract project work & collaborative funding contribution. 85,000

A3.9 Analyse and review monitoring Included in Implementation costs, plus additional contractor costs 30,000 (approximately 300 hours at $100/hour).

Knowledge Gaps

A3.10 Extant distributions (sub-population status) Included in Implementation and Stakeholder Engagement costs, plus 165,000 additional contractor costs (approximately 64 poorly known priority species, 329 potential sites/5 hours/site, $100/hour).

A3.11 Extant distributions (uncaptured data) Included in Implementation costs, plus additional contractor costs 45,000 (approximately 35 priority species; 75 sites/6 hours/site, $100/hour).

A3.12 Extant distributions (uncaptured data) Included in Implementation costs, plus additional contractor costs 30,000 (approximately 300 hours at $100/hour).

A3.13 Extant distributions (potential) Collaborative funding contribution with existing DEH project work (.25 PO2 41,000 position 2 years).

A3.14 Extant distributions (data treatment & analysis) Included in Implementation costs, plus additional contract project work costs 20,000 (approximately 200 hours at $100/hour).

A3.15 Threat abatement interactions Included in Implementation costs plus additional contractor costs 30,000 (approximately 300 hours at $100/hour).

A3.16 Foxes Included in Implementation and Stakeholder Engagement costs. Also dependant on achievement of Actions A1.10 and 1.11.

A3.17 Fire Collaborative funding contribution to existing DEH fire ecology project work 41,000 (.25 PO2 position 2 years).

A3.18 Phytophthora Funding contribution to inter-agency collaborative project, to increase 75,000 research activity in AMLR.

A3.19 Climate Change Collaborative funding contribution with existing DEH project work (.5 PO2 85,000 position 2 years).

A3.20 Ecological Communities Collaborative funding contribution with existing programs and DEH project 120,000 work (.5 PO2 position 3 years).

A3.21 Collaborative Research Collaborative funding contribution. 2 PhD (15K/ea/year) + 3 Honours (10K 150,000

67 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

ea/year)

A3.22 Predation impacts Contract project work (approximately 300 hours at $100/hour). 30,000

Stakeholder Engagement (see Action 3.3 for other related operational costs)

A4.1 Stakeholder engagement strategy Contract project work (130 hours at $100/hour). 13,000

A4.2 Disseminate plan information Collaborative funding contribution to further develop and maintain tool and 85,000 other information dissemination (.5 PO2 position 2 years).

A4.3 Aboriginal engagement protocols Included in Implementation costs.

A4.4 Four Nations Governance Group Workshop costs (10 workshops at $3,500 each). 35,000

A4.5 Community volunteer groups Funding contributions to relevant existing volunteer group funding programs, 500,000 tied to recovery regional priorities ($100,000/year).

Ex-situ conservation

A5.1 Review ex-situ conservation requirements Included in Implementation costs.

A5.2 Support ex-situ conservation programs Included in Implementation costs, plus collaborative funding contribution to 100,000 existing programs ($20,000/year).

Sub-total $9,294,000

CPI* $870,680

TOTAL $10,164,680 * CPI total calculated by applying compounding 3% CPI to base rate of $1,858,800 average annual funding for each financial year (2009-2014).

68 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

8.2 Plan Review and Evaluation This plan will be reviewed within five years of adoption. The recovery team, most likely in conjunction with key stakeholders such as DEH and the NRM Boards, will be responsible for evaluating the implementation and success of this plan. Progress towards achieving the recovery objectives in this plan will be reported against the performance criteria and as required by management and funding arrangements. However it is recognised that many desired ecological outcomes will need to be measured over a much longer time-frame than the intended duration of this plan.

9. Social and Economic Consequences The total cost of implementing the recovery actions is estimated to be $10,164,680 over the 5 year period covered by this plan. It is anticipated that there will be no significant adverse social or economic costs associated with the implementation of this plan and that the overall benefits to society will outweigh any disadvantages. Successful implementation of this recovery plan is dependent on the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders (see Appendices Part A). The combined involvement of a diverse range of stakeholders will foster and promote a co-operative approach to threatened species recovery in the AMLR. It is hoped that the consultation with regional Aboriginal representatives that occurred during development of this plan will continue throughout the plan’s implementation. Indeed, it will be one of the pre-requisites for successful implementation.

9.1 Responsibilities and Affected Interests Whilst the NRM Boards, SA DEH and existing recovery programs including those currently being operated by NGOs will take the lead role in administering this plan, implementation will require a co- ordinated approach involving partnership arrangements with various affected and interested parties, including the Australian Government, other NGOs, local government, community groups and the private sector. Effective communication will be required with and between project partners to maximise the effective contribution of each group and ensure there is a common understanding of the priorities, goals and respective deliverables. To facilitate this, it is proposed that a regional recovery team is established to oversee implementation of this recovery plan and facilitate integration and coordination of recovery work (Action A3.3). The team should be comprised of representatives from key stakeholder organisations and groups. The recovery team should also lead the preparation of a stakeholder engagement strategy (Action 4.1). Until a regional recovery team has been established, it is recommended that the steering committee which directed the development of this plan continues to function. There are a range of existing stakeholders that will be affected by the implementation of this plan. An indicative list is presented in the Appendices Part A.

69 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

Abbreviations AGDEWHA Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts AMLR Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges AMLRNRMB Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board AMLRRRT AMLR Regional Recovery Team (proposed) ARC Australian Research Council BDBSA Biological Databases of South Australia BVG Broad Vegetation Group CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CC Conservation Council of South Australia CG Community Groups (AMLR region) CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CL Act Crown Lands Act 1929 DAC Development Assessment Commission DECC Department of Environment & Climate Change (NSW Government) DEH Department for Environment and Heritage (SA Government) DTEI Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure DWLBC Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation (SA Government) EPA Environment Protection Authority (SA Government) EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 FNGG Four Nations Governance Group FSA Forestry SA GIS Geographic Information System IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources LG Local Government LGA Local Government Association LM Land managers MLR Mount Lofty Ranges NGO Non-government Organisations NHT Natural Heritage Trust NOSSA Native Orchid Society of South Australia NP National Park NPW Act National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 NRM Natural Resources Management NRM Act Natural Resources Management Act 2004 NT Act Native Title Act 1993 NV Act Native Vegetation Act 1991 NVC Native Vegetation Council (also includes the Native Vegetation Assessment Panel) PIRSA Primary Industries and Resources South Australia PSA Planning SA RRP Regional Recovery Pilot (Project)

70 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

RP Recovery Programs (managed by both government and non-government programs) RVG Regional Vulnerability Groups SA South Australia SAMDBNRMB South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board SAM South Australian Museum SASP South Australia’s Strategic Plan SAW SA Water SEWFPSRP Southern Emu-wren/Fleurieu Peninsula Swamps Recovery Program sp. Species spp. Species (plural) SRL Sub-regional Landscape ssp. Subspecies TPAG Threatened Plant Action Group TSN Threatened Species Network UNI Universities VG Vulnerability Groups WCF Wildlife Conservation Fund (Research Grants Program)

71 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

References

1. Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board (2008). Creating A Sustainable Future. A Natural Resources Management Plan for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region.

2. Australia and Environment and Conservation Commission (2001). A National Approach to Firewood Collection and Use in Australia Environment Australia, Canberra.

3. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (2001). Review of the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity. Environment Australia, Canberra.

4. Bardsley, D. (2006). There's a change on the way - an initial integrated assessment of projected climate change impacts and adaptation options for natural resource management in Adelaide and Mt Lofty Ranges region. DWLBC Report 2006/06. Government of South Australia, through Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, Adelaide.

5. Cale, B. (2005). Towards a recovery plan for the declining birds of the Mount Lofty Ranges. Scientific Resource Document for Birds for Biodiversity. Unpublished Report.

6. Carter, O. (2005). Draft Recovery Plan for Halosarcia flabelliformis (Bead Glasswort) in South Australia, Western Australia and Victoria 2006- 2010. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria.

7. Conservation Action Planning (CAP) Working Group (2007). Conservation Action Planning. Developing Strategies, Taking Action, and Measuring Success at Any Scale. Overview of Basic Practices. The Nature Conservancy.

8. Department for Environment and Heritage (2001). Provisional List of Threatened Ecosystems of South Australia (unpublished and provisional). Updated 2005.

9. Department for Environment and Heritage (2002). South Australian Action Plan for Firewood Collection and Use. Adelaide.

10. Department for Environment and Heritage (2007). No Species Loss. A Nature Conservation Strategy for South Australia 2007–2017. Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.

11. Department for Environment and Heritage (2007). Planning Concepts for the Conservation of Biodiversity: Information to Support Natural Resources Management Planning. Unpublished Document, Biodiversity Conservation Program, Science and Conservation Directorate.

12. Department for Environment and Heritage (2008). Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Regional Recovery Pilot Project Database. Unpublished data extracted and edited from BDBSA, SA Herbarium (July 2007) and other sources.

13. Department for Environment and Heritage (2008). A Biodiversity Strategy for Adelaide and the Mount Lofty Ranges. Unpublished Draft.

14. Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW) (2007). Preliminary Draft Border Ranges Rainforest (NSW & QLD) National Regional Recovery Plan. Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW), Sydney.

15. Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW (2007). Lord Howe Island Biodiversity Management Plan. Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW), Sydney.

16. Department of the Environment Sport and Territories (1996). The National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity. Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra.

17. Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation (2006). State Natural Resources Management Plan 2006. Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, South Australia.

18. Environment Australia (2001). Threat Abatement Plan for Dieback caused by the root-rot fungus Phytophthora cinnamomi. Biodiversity Group, Environment Australia, Canberra.

72 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

19. Environment Australia (2002). Revised Recovery Plan Guidelines for Nationally Listed Threatened Species and Ecological Communities under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.

20. Fahrig, L. (2002). Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinction threshold: a synthesis. Ecological Applications 12 (2): 346-353.

21. Four Nations NRM Governance Group (2007). Four Nations NRM Governance Group Consultation and Engagement Protocols. Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Region. Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board, Adelaide.

22. Government of South Australia (2007). Planning Strategy for the Outer Metropolitan Adelaide Region. Government of South Australia, Adelaide.

23. Government of South Australia. (2007). South Australia's Strategic Plan.

24. Groves, C. R. (2003). Drafting a Conservation Blueprint: A Practitioner's Guide to Planning for Biodiversity. The Nature Conservancy, Washington, USA.

25. Hammer, M., Wedderburn, S. and Van Weenen, J. (2007). Action Plan for South Australian Freshwater Fishes: 2007-2012 Draft. Native Fish Australia (SA) Inc., Adelaide.

26. IUCN and CMP (2006). Unified Classification of Direct Threats Version 1.0. IUCN. Available from http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/sis/classification.htm (accessed June 2008).

27. Mace, G. M., Possingham, H. P. and Leader-Williams, N. (2006). Prioritizing choices in conservation. Pages Pp 17-34. In: D. W. Macdonald, and K. Service, eds. Key Topics in Conservation Biology. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, USA.

28. Obst, C. (2005). South Australian Murray Darling Basin Threatened Flora Recovery Plan. Report to the Threatened Species and Communities Section, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.

29. Phytophthora Technical Group (2003). Phytophthora Management Guidelines. Government of South Australia.

30. Pobke, K. (2007). Draft recovery plan for 23 threatened flora taxa on Eyre Peninsula, South Australia 2007-2012. Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.

31. Quarmby, J. P. (2006). Recovery Plan for Twelve Threatened Orchids in the Lofty Block Region of South Australia 2007 - 2012. Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.

32. Salafsky, N., Salzer, D., Ervin, J., Boucher, T. and Ostlie, W. (2003). Conventions for Defining, Naming, Measuring, Combining, and Mapping Threats in Conservation. An Initial Proposal for a Standard System. Draft Version.

33. Suppiah, R., Preston, B., Whetton, P. H., McInnes, K. L., Jones, R. N., Macadam, I., Bathols, J. and Kirono, D. (2006). Climate change under enhanced greenhouse conditions in South Australia, An updated report on: Assessment of climate change, impacts and risk management strategies relevant to South Australia. Climate Impacts and Risk Group, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research.

34. Taylor, D. A. (2003). Recovery plan for 15 nationally threatened plant species on Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Department for Environment & Heritage, South Australia.

35. Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2006). Listing Advice to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Commonwealth) on Prasophyllum murfetii. Available from http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/prasophyllum-murfetii.html

36. Tilman, D., May, R. M., Lehman, C. L. and Nowak, M. A. (1994). Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371: 65-66.

37. Turner, D. J. and Kinnear, A. J. (2007). Biodiversity baselines program: Final report to the Adelaide and Mt Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board for funding acquittal under MLRGA INRM group action 2004-05. Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.

73 Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014

38. Turner, M. S. (2001). Conserving Adelaide's Biodiversity: Resources. Urban Forest Biodiversity Program, Adelaide.

39. Velzeboer, R., Stubbs, W., West, A. and Bond, A. (2005). Threatened plant species at risk from Phytophthora in South Australia. South Australian Department for Environment and Heritage.

40. Verrier, F. J. and Kirkpatrick, J. B. (2005). Frequent mowing is better than grazing for the conservation value of lowland tussock grassland at Pontville, Tasmania. Austral Ecol 30 (1): 74-78.

74